E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSGov. Bev Perdue shares her thoughts on the gay marriage fight taking place in North Carolina on Tuesday and struggles to say whether she is for or against gay marriage itself.
Updated at 8:30 a.m. ET: North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday night banning gay marriage, but the measure also goes one step further by not allowing civil unions.
The state becomes the last in the South to approve an anti-gay marriage amendment and joins 30 others with similar measures. Incomplete returns Tuesday night showed the amendment passing by 60 percent of the vote.
The amendment, also known as Amendment One, would make marriage the only legal domestic union valid in the state. Opponents said the measure was unnecessary because a state statute has banned gay marriage in North Carolina since 1996. They also argued that domestic partners – both straight and gay – and their children could lose health benefits under the amendment, but advocates for the new measure claim that will not happen.
Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because “those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the legislature.”
Lee watched the election results at a party in Raleigh with grassroots coordinators and coalition members. When it became clear the amendment had passed, they cut a vanilla wedding cake topped with a figurine of a bride and groom.
“If you looked at a map of our country, you saw North Carolina as the only one in the Southeast without an amendment preserving marriage between a man and a woman,” Lee said after the results had come in. “North Carolina had a target on her back.”
Half of Americans support gay marriage in new Gallup Poll
To overturn the amendment approved Tuesday night, the legislature would have to overrule the amendment by a three-fifths vote and get voter approval. Before the amendment passed, a judge or simple legislative majority could have overturned the 1996 statute banning gay marriage.
“This puts up a bigger barrier,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University.
Dinan said the amendment was introduced after Republicans won a majority in both houses of the state legislature in 2010.
“It’s been a pretty easy win in every southern state,” Dinan said. “It never got to the ballot in North Carolina because Democratic legislatures never let it get there.”
Dinan said the amendment’s impacts would not be immediate.
Allen Breed / AP
Hundreds of people gather behind the state capitol for a rally supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Raleigh, N.C., on April 20, 2012.
“The one place it could make a difference is in eight or nine cities in North Carolina that give out insurance benefits to same-sex couples,” Dinan said. “Lawyers might have to start taking a real close look at those insurance benefits that are given out and they might have to change those.”
Melissa and Libby Hodges of Durham could be among those affected by the amendment. They worry their 5-year-old daughter may lose her health benefits, as she is covered by Libby, who cannot legally adopt her. By Tuesday afternoon, the moms had filled out paperwork for private insurance.
Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families, which was against the amendment, echoed the concern about health benefits for domestic partners, gay or straight. His group also is worried that victims of domestic violence may no longer be covered by statutes addressing that type of crime.
“We know the consequences that we’re listing, but there’s a whole bunch of unintended consequences that we probably haven’t even thought of yet that will come up in the courts after this,” Kennedy said.
Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment, said children of gay parents in other states where similar amendments have passed have not lost their health insurance. He said he doubts that would happen in North Carolina.
Lee said the amendment would “in no way impact domestic violence protections, child custody or end of life desires."
In gay marriage vote, it's Bill Clinton versus Billy Graham
Bullied gay teen who fired stun gun is expelled
Smaller same-sex marriage battleground this year than in 2004
Judge calls prosecutor’s rejection of gay juror ‘shocking’
Voting began early Tuesday on the marriage amendment and candidate races in the 2012 primary, but 512,000 people – or 8 percent of registered voters – already had participated through absentee ballot, according to the State Board of Elections. That record turnout surpassed even the 2008 primary, which included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, according to Democracy North Carolina.
Several high-profile figures – from former President Bill Clinton to evangelist Billy Graham – and national advocacy groups weighed in on the amendment.
“We’re having a great debate about marriage in this country, and it’s not at all settled about which way we’re going to go,” Peters said.
Before North Carolina's amendment passed, the last state to approve a constitutional amendment did so in 2008. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.
Back in Durham, Libby and Melissa Hodges were debating whether to move to another state, where gay marriage would be legal.
They moved to North Carolina from Georgia in part because at the time, North Carolina allowed gay partners to adopt their children. That is no longer legal.
“My brother said, ‘If the amendment passes, North Carolina will be more backward than Georgia, will you move back to Georgia then?’” Melissa Hodges said. “I said, ‘You’re so wonderfully sweet, but no.’”
But leaving North Carolina would be hard. Both are city planners close to being vested in the state’s pension plan. Selling their home would be difficult, Melissa Hodges added, and their daughter was accepted into their first-choice kindergarten. Plus, another move would take her away from her brother, with whom she is close.
On Tuesday night, the Hodges watched the results online after putting their daughter to bed.
"She asked us before we put her to bed to make sure to tell her in the morning that we won," Melissa Hodges said. "She doesn't get the stuff with health insurance, but we told her that we'll always take care of her, not to worry about that."
Msnbc.com's Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The very thought of using a constitution to actually restrict rights of others is abhorrent.
Well, the good news is that apparently there are 20 other states who don't care to "restrict rights of others" so those affected are welcome to move to those states. bye and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Founding fathers???? Somehow I doubt the amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman are really THAT OLD. Enough of the drama, already.
Brilliant logic, for a bigot.
You must just be mad that women would rather screw each other than screw you.
You obviously never heard of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Both of you are no different than those that advocated against interracial marriage. Get help.
Do you guys actually believe the founding fathers are "rolling over in their graves" because men want to marry men, and women want to marry women? I get what you are saying, but lets not pretend that any of our founding fathers would have supported gay marriage. The idea would have been laughable and you know it.
Agreed! The Constitution is intended to insure the rights and freedoms of Americans, not to take them away.
There is no "right" to get married.
I honestly don't get why people would care if their homosexual neighbors (or people living in another city for that matter) are married or homosexual at all. What they do in their bedroom is their business. If two straight people can kiss in the park, why shouldn't two homosexual people be able to? Single people have to put up with both either way. They're citizens, they pay taxes, they should be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage.
Before you bring religion into the discussion, keep in mind not everyone follows your religion and:
-In regards to Christianity, your clergy have been molesting and raping children they should be HELPING for decades.
-In regards to Islam, you're currently bombing your own people.
No religion has the moral high ground; history has shown us this time and time again.
By the way, this is coming from a heterosexual college graduate who doesn't believe in sex before marriage. I don't follow any mainstream religion and I'm not Atheist either.
well, it's true...if I want "all the same rights" as straight people, I better just buck up and find me a complete idiot of a straight man to marry.
I mean, he'd have to be utterly clueless in order to not to realize how repulsed I am by him...but im sure I wont have trouble finding ONE.
heaven forbid I try to do the most logical thing, and get "special rights" so that I dont ruin any hetero mans life, as well as my own.
the logic of gay obsessed uber religious straight people...i'll never understand, ever.
scrooge - are you with me in banning heterosexual marriages?
i mean, 1/2 end in failure anyway...thats all the evidence we need that they should be banned.
not like straight ever had "right" to be married anyway.
"Agreed! The Constitution is intended to insure the rights and freedoms of Americans, not to take them away"
Unless of course you are trying to force a religion to pay for abortion when they are against it, or perform weddings of people that they do not think should be able to marry... Basically if they agree with what you think is right then they are free to practice it, otherwise as our President said, "shut up and get out of the way"
Never happened.
Never has happened, nor will it.
You sir, are severely deficient of accurate information.
Not all straight men are complete idiots, idiots sometimes sure but not nessicarily complete in their idiocy. "Complete" takes a lifetime to achieve. ;)
That said, you should be able to marry whomever you choose to marry regardless of gender, race, wealth or religion etc. People who disagree will be on the wrong side of history.
The supreme court says otherwise.
tex-478405, glad to see the power is back on in the trailer park.
You're correct, marriage as a right is never mentioned in the Constitution. Good thing we have a 9th Amendment!!!
For all you fans of "strawman" arguments...
The polygamy/group marriage argument: Fails. There isn't enough public interest to support the complications surrounding accross the board legal polygamy. We would have to spend the time and money rewriting tax law, insurance law, family law, probate law, yada, yada, yada.
The pedophilia/inanimate object/besitality argument: Fails. Children, animals, and random objects lack recognized legal capacity under the law. They can't consent, they can't contract, they don't get to vote, yada, yada, yada. Continuing, homosexuality is not a mental illness, it's not listed in the DSM-IV and has no negative impact on society.
The incest argument: Incest is based on abuse, power, and control. Show me two immediate family members, who had healthy, non-abusive upbringings, know that they're related, and still want to marry, and I'll say go for it.
The marriage is religious argument: Fails. Marriage is a contractual property agreement predating all organized religion. You're thinking of Holy Matrimony. Nor is the public or society a party to the contract. The consideration is only between the two legal adults. That's why society doesn't get a share in everyone's divorce, we don't sign the lisense, we don't get the kids every other weekend.
The majority rules argument: Fails. We're a Republic, we don't vote on civil rights, and marriage is a civil right. SCOTUS has ruled in one 14 different times. This means you need a reason that passes strict scrutiny to prohibit marriage. None of the following are legal reasons... The Bible, your personal beliefs, Jesus, God, religion, your morals, unproven paranoia.
The state shouldn't place no religion, above religion: Fails. Nothing doesn't equal something. Overturning religious based legislation, in no way supports Athieism. Again I thank you Indie for this fantastic example... If you're pushing against a wall, and you stop, does that mean the wall is now pushing you? No. If a lack of religion constituted a support of Athieism, we would have to write disclaimers on every single, non religious, thing in the country.
The I don't want it in my face argument: Fails. Get over yourself. There are just as many people out there that don't want your relationship in their face either, does that mean you should live in a closet? No. Get over yourself. If you don't like something, don't pay attention. Not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms. Call me when someone forces you to be gay or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. Until than, get over yourselves.
The it's unnatural argument: So are a lot of things you don't argue against. Like babies with health issues surviving. That's not supposed to happen according to "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" either. Nor is marriage about procreation. Look at all the couples who don't want/have kids, and all the single people who do.
And no, the 10th Amendment and the founding father's "religion" has nothing to do with this.Religion, being part of our Founding Father's personal lives, and being part of how our Founding Father's wanted our nation to be ran, are two very different things...
James Madison...
"Strongly guarded is the separation of religion and government in the Consitution."
"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Ben Franklin...
"I have found Christian dogma to be unintelligible."
Thomas Jefferson...
"I contemplate with solemn reverance the act of the American people which declared that their legislature 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
And, my personal favorite, from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by John Adams, and ratified by congress...
"The United States was, in no sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Finally, not that you brought it up, Curt, but I'm sure someone will...
And don't even give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee, crap. The 14th amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Ergo, the 1st amendment to the states. Argument that the 10th gives the states the right to name a religion would of been valid in, oh 1860 or earlier. In fact, the 14th basically makes the 10th almost null and void. An issue regarding the 10th hasn't even come before SCOTUS since the '60's when they tried to use it to stop desegregation.
So please, explain to me how two people entering into a contractual property agreement, infringes on someone's freedom of religion?
No one is trying to force their beliefs or lifestyles on you. In fact, the complete opposite is true.
WE don't use gay relationships as an issue in politics, the right does. We advocate for NOT using them, NOT caring, NOT legislating based on sexual orientation. As in treating them the same as straight people.
In order to stop us from doing that. In order to stop us from repealing laws that SPECIFICALLY make an issue out of being gay or not, the right uses they're Bibles, morals, and religions. When, quite clearly, in our nation, those things have no standing.
It was the right that legislated homosexuality. DADT, DOMA, sodomy laws... It is the right that's fighting to keep legislating homosexuality. They need to stop using it as a political issue, and we will then cease to say anything about their methods and how they go about using them or defending them.
Phew, so put that in your pipes and smoke it. Now, can we please move on, under the banner of equal protection???
Fear not. you attract what you fear. I'll just say this; the tide is turning in many areas (the civil rights movement for example) and these people that are telling people how to live so that they could feel better (ignorant, yes) cannot control the change thats coming. We all have free will and that freedom to pursue our own happiness, that's what our founding fathers granted us ALL! gay & straight alike.
No but it was in the original DSM from the 50's. Seems like we haven't come very far in 60 years! :-(
In fact here's just one example from the orignal DSM-I. (Yes I have it as PDF for archival purposes and when I need a good laugh!
Well, that could be; but taking a basic anatomy or biology course and applying common sense concludes that it's sure as hell not normal in the natural order of things.
And here is from the DSM-II:
Spider,
Nature begs to differ...
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
According to your logic, anything that can't create off spring is not normal in the natural order of things. So I'm sure you've never had oral sex, right? Or foreplay?
And of course, it's so abnormal and unnatural for folks to be infertile, so maybe we should make fertility a requirement, before allowing marriage?
One more interesting piece of DSM history and I'm done. This is from an APA(American Psychiatric Association) memo in 1973 where they first proposed to take homosexuality out of the book. This paragraph was very telling then and now. 20 years after the first DSM publication they consider taking it out, and 40 years later, it seems we might as well write it back in with the neo-conservatives out there:
That is the way it should be. The less than 2% of the population that may be homosexuals should not be allowed to change the English language in the United States to their definitions. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. They want a homosexual union, a civil union for the mistake that nature made. Give it to them but get their hands off the English language and the rights of heterosexuals to keep the English language as it has evolved. Gay is not now looked as carefree, happy, etc. The word now means homosexual. I DO NOT LIKE IT. AND I AM ONE OF THE 98% CALLED HETEROSEXUALS. The homosexuals want to use among themselves passwords, keywords, distorted words to describe themselves fine but when they enter the English language mainstream and want to destroy what has been established for thousands of years I am against it.
The relationship that two samesex homsosexuals have is not marriage. Period.
So when it's something you agree with it's God's good work, but when not it's nature's mistake? What happened to a divine plan?
If Jesus Christ is God, and God created all, then Jesus Christ created the homosexual. Than it's a possibility that Jesus Christ was gay!
One day, Americans will all look back on the gay rights movement like we do on other civil rights movements such as women's right to vote and interracial marriages. I'm still hoping the Supreme Court will rule in favor, like they did with interracial marriages.
I'm a true small government conservative. I don't want government telling me or anyone else how to live their lives. As long as their actions do not directly affect someone else, I'm ok with them...and getting married to someone of the same sex does not affect anyone else.
Dictionary,
Wrong. Marriage is a contractual property agreement, pre-dating all organized religion. It's been the union of one man, and one man's female ward. The union of one man, and many women. The union of one woman, and many men. The union of one black man and one black woman...
We went out of our way to define it as the union of one man and one woman, ergo, undefining as such is taking the onus OFF of ourselves.
Nature makes lots of "mistakes". Where do we then draw the line? No albino marriage? No infertile marriage?
Yeah, we don't care what you do or don't like. Get over yourself. If you don't like it, don't get gay married. You sound like a petulent child. I don't like Jackie Chan movies, does that mean NO one should be allowed to watch them, because I don't "want it in my face"???
"So there!!! Na, na, na, boo, boo!" Really? You can't come up with a single substantive point? Just, "because I said so"???
Jessica:
I WOULD be in favor of banning heterosexual marriage as it is defined today. The reason for the failure rate you bring up is that marriage has devolved into merely a revocable commitment ceremony for a couple's own selfish, personal benefit. This is at the crux of the matter when people ignorantly post about how we should all stay out of other people’s bedrooms. This isn’t about sex or love. That’s the problem people have with understanding this issue.
Marriage was defined LONG before religion and government as the reality that unites one man and one woman and any children that result from that union. This definition CANNOT be changed no matter how much some would like it to.
Citing your statistics above, I would question the sanity of anyone with a same-sex attraction for wanting to get mixed up in something with such a dismal success rate.
HEY, Sarah3043284...You seem like an intelligent and accepting kind of a girl who probably also cares about hunger and "global warming" et al. Since everyone knows that the inherent flatulance of post gay sex is a major contributor to "global warming", let's get rid of the one and cure the other!
Jackie Chan movies are DISGUSTING and IMMORAL! I reaallly reallly think they are just awful! So, that being the case, I will infringe upon the rights of others who enjoy Jackie Chan movies simply because I do not like them, and I feel my personal opinion and irrelevant beliefs trump those of others - and that it's ok to hypocritically infringe upon the rights of others based off my personal opinion about Jackie Chan's movies (I'm pretty sure Leviticus called them abominations)
Oh yeah, and I'm totally not judgemental, I'm just exercising my free speech so you should applaud me and be impressed, and... umm... something about Jackie Chan is going to Hell and whatever.
Shuklack,
I'm protesting outside my local AMC 20 tonight. My sign says, "God Hates Jackie Chan Movies!"
Who's with me!?!?!?!?!?!
SayNay,
I find all farting, regardless of its origins funny. Ergo, no, we shouldn't.
Everyone knows? I didn't know about any "inherent flatulence" - how might you be so well informed on the after effects of gay sex? Hmmm?
Now if only I can get my church (Catholic) to acknowledge Gay Marriage as a civil right - and not a civil rite.
I'll admit - I don't want my church performing Sacramental marriage - that's a religious Rite (not Right). But I DO want my State and Nation to protect people who don't believe that a Rite is necessary for the Right to get married.
Besides - I thought we were supposed to support the sanctity and promote the good family values of marriage? What's better at doing that than allowing people to get married?
I mean, hell - the same arguments were made against my wife & I getting married up until the 1960s. After all, interracial marriage was "unnatural" and a "slippery slope" to all sorts of bad things...Maybe they were right...after all, now we're talking about Gay marriage! Soon it will be "Dogs and Cats, living together... Mass Hysteria!"
sarah...I think I 'm falling in love with you..
I see this tactic used quite frequently: post that study, or ones like it, attempting to justify human same-sex attraction. As if we are no better than animals, unable to control our urges.
What none of those studies will ever tell you (because they cannot) is how many of those species are engaging in that sort of destructive behavior consensually or are they forced/coerced into it by a more dominant member?
That is a great point. (Let me start by saying I mean no disrespect to anyone by this next statement, or condone anything herein.) So in nature rape is the norm? And as my earlier post from the early days of DSM points out, rape and homosexuality are in the same category of mental disorder. Maybe the anti-gay movement has a point....
NAH!!!!!!!!!!
Can ANYONE here name just one other species on this Earth where males mate with males or females mate with females???
Leave your politics and religion at the door and just answer the question.
The answer to this question is so simple that some would rather argue about it and vote on it rather than just admit they are wrong.
Let's see what GOP has to offer so far, as little rights to women as possible and anything against theirs religious' belief are not permitted. Sound like what Muslim is saying to me.
Despite whatever GOP is saying, they are a "lite" version of Muslim society.
What's next? Bishop for president? Bishops tried that for centuries to take over the country, I guess it's back to Middle Age now.
I have personally had to separate two male dogs
lee: Earthworms and Reef Fish.
Lee,
I already posted the link you're looking for...
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Scrooge,
Don't worry, not all the species listed have non-consenual sex. And furthermore, it really doesn't matter, because gay =/= rape, they have frontal lobes too.
And, you've yet to provide any way they harm you or society, or any valid legal argument to deny them rights.
The science here is secondary, this is actually about LAW.
Yes there is. The SCOTUS deemed marriage to be a "basic civil right," in their landmark case: Loving v. Virginia (1967).
Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 different species. Seems more natural than you think.
The number is closer to 5-10%. But regardless, the majority does not rule over the minority.
You don't own the word marriage and marriage has been redifined throughout history. It's not being changed now. Only being made more inclusive.
Civil unions is not marriage and it's a case of separate, but equal which is unconstitutional!
Deal with it! Gays are here, gay marriage is happening, people are slowly becoming more accepting of that, and gays are taxpaying American citizens, and they deserve equal rights under the law.
So am I and I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage in the least, nor anyone else's marriage. And there is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry.
Merely your opinion. Whao are you to say what someone's marriage is like or defined as?
Marriage has always been a civil institution and children have never been required for a marriage or vice versa!
Unfortunately, it's not just the GOP that is opposed to gay marriage - a large percentage of the black and Hispanic community is also opposed (and these are mostly Democratic voters). By the way, some people I know that vote largely Republican are also gay right supporters...not most, but a decent %.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11598537-women-battle-over-who-gets-recognized-as-dead-soldiers-wife?threadId=3413576&commentId=65645854#c65645854
Marriage between ONE man and ONE woman huh? Damn those homosexuals for ruining the fine, pure, sacred institution of marriage... Oh, wait.
One must assume that if you are for this crap you must also be a wacko nut job liberal gay? Yes I see several on this post. Stay in the closet where you belong and keep your aids with you.
Nicely said -
lol - Thumbs up... Way up!
Ruken
Well said Ruken, well said.
There is a thing in nature called a hermaphrodite. (google it)
Are all those living things evil?
This is all about trying to impose your (contorted) religious beliefs upon others who may not share your "values".
Religion is such a f'd up, obsolete concept, and has done more harm than good.
Time to start walking upright, and quit dragging your knuckles.
I feel a little better about the state this Country is in, based off this article. I was worried that everyone thought gay marriage was ok, apparently not everyone is so apathetic towards the issue as I thought, and for them to go after gay unions is even better. I really was concerned that people had lost their sense of morality and that gay marriage would soon be the norm. I will feel better about having children with my wife knowing that it's not. Thanks North Carolina.
Sarah
Thanks for the reply but as I do my research on numbers of species on this planet......
I'm now up into the MILLIONS.
The link you posted addresses only 1,500 and it's only a number of conjecture by a select group...
Just my opinion but homosexual behavior is not "normal" by any means.
Everyone have a great day while I go exercise my right to vote against this stupidity.
First you asked for one. And when people with half a brain answer you, you change your bar for what is considered 'normal.' You anti-gay people need to get a real solid argument to get behind, because I haven't seen one yet.
@CanadianPaul
What in the hell of all hells does gay marriage have to do with having kids? So you'll feel better knowing if one of your kids is gay their rights can be trampled on? And don't tell me that you can raise them with the 'morality' they deserve, cause I know several preachers daughter's that ended up eating muff pie!
smartph0neus3r-2991528
I had to separate my two male cats as well when growing up.
If homosexuals want to get married and have all the benefits and downsides then why not let them? They are human beings and they are entitled to every right like the rest of us.
Dictionary, where did you get your statistics from? The acknowledged number of homosexuals in the US is closer to 8%. Did you just make that number up to make yourself feel better, or to try to minimize their population to justify being a jerk?
No, your argument fails, because people say homosexuality is not natural, then are shown it happens in nature, meaning it is natural. Control our urges? I don't have, nor have I ever had an urge to have sex with another man. Maybe you are a gay who is repressing his "urges?" and what exactly is destructive about homosexuality? Are you now comparing homosexuality to rape? The article talks about how male lions have sex with each other, it does not say that one butt rapes the other.
It doesn't matter how SC votes. we ALL know that gay marriage will be the law of the land withing a generation.
If not, the whole "land of equality" America will be known as a lie.
Can you imagine if we voted on slavery, women's rights, civil rights, etc, etc, etc?
How embarrassing to be from SC.
So you're telling me that you have half a brain???
For SOME odd reason..... I beleive you!
" Are you ok with banning heterosexual marriages"?
I think you would make more people happy than unhappy with that one.
Tell me Lee, are you against anything that one could arguably define as "unnatural"?
Like any type of medical treatment for any sick adult or child? Cancer treatments? Organ transplants?
You seem to be using the internet--I would certainly classify that as "unnatural".
Do you eat processed foods? Do you drive a car?
It's also not "natural" to have only one spouse. The majority of animals and cultures in the world have (at least at one point, although they may not now) practiced polygamy.
I'm also interested in hearing your definition of "normal", and why you feel that "normal" is sniffing around other people's bedrooms and making legislation regarding private behavior. Please, DO SHARE.
I should also add that oral sex and foreplay are not "natural" either--should we ban that "stupidity", too?
Or maybe Lee, just maybe... you should be questioning why you care so damn much about what goes on in other people's bedrooms. Eh?
For all you fans of "strawman" arguments...
...etc.
Sarah: Why do you keep writing the same thing over and over again. None of those views are yours. If you are going to write something, at least be original. I'm tired of seeing the same post about why this and why that. In fact, I'm tired about writing all the time dealing with those arguments. PLEASE COME UP WITH SOME NEW ARGUMENTS. The fact that you keep copying makes me believe you are sheeple.
Let's be honest. The only reason homosexuals want marriage made legal is for the financial advantages.
Here is an incomplete list of the (unfair) advantages the married have over we singles:
This is only a summary of some of the ways singles are discriminated against.
This isn't a gay vs. straight fight. It's really about the archaic and illogical advantages the married have over the single.
I say abolish all the financial benefits the married have and put them on a level financial playing field. After that, who gives a tinker's damn who gets married?
Sarah-3043284 -
I just have to say that I ABSOLUTELY FREAKING LOVE YOU! I myself am a gay man, but I was wondering...will you marry me????
;)
Thank you for standing up for equal rights for ALL human beings everywhere, and for your thoughtful, articulate posts.
I'm all for the amendment and glad to know that the state I will soon be living in will only observe marriage between a man and a woman. Anything else is a perversion of marriage!
Seperation between church and state...
seperation between your life and thiers
seperation of the morons from the "tolerant"
NC will is behind a few decades from states like NY, not in economy or trade, but in the mind...
if u vote to be a bigot, have fun...
until then, i hope no NC are allowed to get divored, becuase ill vote on that
What you really mean is, you're tired with not being able to come up with substantial rebuttals to those arguments. How about you come up with some arguments against gay marriage that actually make an iota of sense?
Gordy327:
Yes there is. The SCOTUS deemed marriage to be a "basic civil right," in their landmark case: Loving v. Virginia (1967).
If you read the decision it is a basic civil right “fundamental to our very existence and survival.” That takes a man and a woman. Chuck and Larry are not going to bear offspring.
Homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 different species. Seems more natural than you think.
Homosexuality observed in other species is a “domination” display. Just like in prison. Those guys aren't gay they want to dominate through fear.
The number is closer to 5-10%. But regardless, the majority does not rule over the minority.
Where is that written? Seems that the “majority rules” doctrine is still in effect.
You don't own the word marriage and marriage has been redifined throughout history. It's not being changed now. Only being made more inclusive.
“Just more inclusive.” What a joke. In this country it has always been between one man and one woman. Allowing Susan and Liz to marry does change the definition.
Civil unions is not marriage and it's a case of separate, but equal which is unconstitutional!
Fine let’s just drop the issue and they can go back to the word that truly defines them, roommates.
Deal with it! Gays are here, gay marriage is happening, people are slowly becoming more accepting of that, and gays are taxpaying American citizens, and they deserve equal rights under the law.
I’m dealing with it, by fighting it all the way. People are becoming accepting because this issue is being beaten to death. The liberal media is now on their side and their propaganda is unending.
So am I and I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage in the least, nor anyone else's marriage. And there is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry.
Sorry, but I disagree. This would and has affected marriage.
Merely your opinion. Whao are you to say what someone's marriage is like or defined as?
It’s my opinion too. It’s also the opinion of the majority of this country’s citizens.
Marriage has always been a civil institution and children have never been required for a marriage or vice versa!
However, that’s the natural expectation of a marriage, children, you know survival of the species. It is also a religious institution.
We need to pertect are marridges! Stop them gays from gittin married! Their comin to git are kids!
Oh, and while we're at it, we ought to make it illegal for people who divorce from getting married again. After all, they have stained our cherished institution of marriage.
NCC, if you are a gay man, why in the world would you want to marry Sarah?
Sarah, nice thoughtful and intelligent posts. You have way more patience than I. Cudos.
bah "kudos" even.. brain fart.
Ever notice how those who support gay marriage always have well thought out, factual posts... like Sarah.
But those against gay marriage have only opinion, and nothing else.
We are still waiting for one person to explain how allowing two gay people to sign a government endorsed business contract will be detrimental to society.
Common sense dictates that homosexuality IS NORMAL and NATURAL.
Humans are capable of exponential growth through reproduction, while the earth is of finite size. In order to maintain a stable population and not kill ourselves off with severe over-population, natural buffers come out... homosexuality, infertility, etc. This is common sense. It is the natural way to buffer exponential population growth.
Unhappy,
Because you anti-equality folks continue to use those same ridiculous arguments. Cease to try to justify your position with illogical strawman arguments and I will cease to blow them out of the water.
And you're right, they aren't entirely mine, they belong to every human being who has the ability to logically reason through a position. I just had the time to articulate them.
And, pssst, they aren't arguments, they're defenses to arguments. Not that I think you'll understand that distinction.
So, if you never want to see them again, either, stop using those position to justify your bigotry, and own it for what it is, or present a counter defense that proves my positions wrong.
Until then, deal with it, buddy.
To Everyone Else,
Thank you very much!
P.S. NCC,
My answer would be yes. If I too, were a gay man, or you were a straight man.
@Ruken
This is just a sign of the desperation conservatives are starting to feel. They know they are losing this battle and the tides are turning. For the first time in our history the majority of Americans support gay marriage. While this will be a sad day for those in NC should it pass it will ultimately be little other than a speed bump along the way of progress. I see a 28th Amendment to our Constitution coming down the road and it's going to be the opposite of what the conservatives are hoping for.
They say only Steers and Queers come from Texas. So are you a castrated bull or gay? This is for all the texan posters.
To 3thirty3 who wrote:
So am I and I have no problem with gay marriage. Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage in the least, nor anyone else's marriage. And there is no logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry.
Sorry, but I disagree. This would and has affected marriage.
Ok, so you disagree. Please, enlighten everyone here - how has it affected marriage? Please provide factual evidence, not bigot-laced biased opinion. That is all.
See here's the problem, the bill has nothing really to do with Homosexual marriage as its already not allowed in NC, all it does is say marriage is between a man and a woman big whoop seeing as a man can't marry a man already in NC. The bigger issue to this bill that people need to focus more on is the fact that it takes away rights of people that aren't married, HETEROSEXUAL and HOMOSEXUAL!!! Forget the gay rights portion of the bill all together, the only reason some looney that drew up the bill even put the idea in the bill that it's about "Gay Marriage" is because NC is a southern state and it would have a better chance of passing with that tag on it.
The founding fathers would be sick if they knew about this. Back then they kept it to themselves and weren't out trying to rub it in every one else face the way they do now. @backcountry. So the tides are turning and right is losing the battle against wrong. That just go's to show you how low this country has sank into pacifying and perversion. Hopefully the good people of North Carolina will do the right thing.
@Okicize Wicasa Yata Pi
What wrong? The so-called "wrong" that denies two people in a committed relationship from enjoying all of the same privileges that most couples enjoy? I don't see anything "wrong" with that and neither does anyone else who lives in this century. I can't help but laugh every time I hear some conservatives talking about Muslims in the Middle East still living in the 6th century when many of those same Christian conservatives are stuck in the 7th.
IndieParty: "Common sense dictates that homosexuality IS NORMAL and NATURAL.
Humans are capable of exponential growth through reproduction, while the earth is of finite size. In order to maintain a stable population and not kill ourselves off with severe over-population, natural buffers come out... homosexuality, infertility, etc. This is common sense. It is the natural way to buffer exponential population growth."
I believe your sense is anything but common. Homosexuality is not a natural buffer, it is a genetic defect and has nothing to do with population control. You liberal are really stretching it today.
@IndieParty:
There is nothing normal about two men or two women getting it on! It is disgusting and perverse.
Along with the amendment, I'd like to see laws against gays adopting. There's all sorts of reasons people are not allowed to adopt - this should be one of them. Kids grow up with enough issues without having to explain having two mommies or two daddies. Just plain creepy!
Shortening this quote so things will fit.
If anyone needs proof that the US is not a Christian country, and thus should allow all kinds of religious theory, look at our job hiring policy. Interview based on appearance and impression, not ability, and backed up by job history. Christianity teaches about how beauty without virtue is like a temptress. And job history? In a religion which has the main focus as forgiveness, what possible reason could there be for making sure someone isn't a felon? So, with that said, on to the various points.
I'd actually favor a general loosening up on laws concerning marriage. It should be "a bond between living things (sorry, you can't marry objects) involving the consent of both (disallowing animals, since they can't speak)" and besides that it should be left up to the churches/temples. Yes, you heard me right. Marriage is a ceremonial ritual, if you can find a temple willing to let you marry how you want, go for it. The state has no business making laws telling priests they have to marry gay people, and none telling them they can't.
They right to marriage is the right to share property, make visits to loved one, etc. In a libertarian state you should be able to do this sort of thing with anyone you want to, simply by signing a contract. A wedding is a ceremony arranged by a temple for two people who honestly want to spend their lives together. Take away property benefits, take away civil unions, and all the monetary inheritance built in (that should be a separate agreement), and you'll have a natural marriage, a group of usually two people who want to stay together and raise a family. This is the natural purpose of marriage, not dowry but actual love. And gays can certainly adopt and raise children.
Get rid of Obamacare, and get rid of this. And return people to just being able to do as they wish with their lives.
Sarah: You are not providing an argument. You are plagarizing. If you are going to present ideas on this site, please make them your own. Unless of course, you want people to think you are sheeple. Also if you are looking at the above posts, you can see counter defenses for your arguments.
Second, Stop quoting Thomas Jefferson/ James Madison/ Ben Franklin. Why don't you start with the FIRST PRESIDENT, -George Washington. Here, let me help you.
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” - George Washington
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.” - George Washington
“We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” - George Washington
Sarah, your posts are always worth a read. We always enjoy clear reason :c)
@3thirty3
Well it's impossible to make the argument that something that occurs fairly commonly in nature is somehow "unnatural". But whether or not it is "natural" deflects from the issue. Should all consenting adults all be allowed the same protections regardless of their sexual orientation?
Talk about a major step backward...
In fact, why stop there? Why not make interracial marriage illegal, like it was before Loving? In fact, why not make slavery legal again? Why not also make it illegal for senior citizens to remarry (since they can't by and large procreate anymore, especially women...sorry ladies!).
This is the kind of knee-jerk legislation that is not America. And people wonder why the world is laughing at us...I would too, if it weren't so sad. Then again, America hasn't really been the land of the free for some time. A tragedy if there ever was one...
Offspring is not required for marriage or vice versa. Neither is the intention of having offspring. So that argument falls flat!
Not entirely. Animals have been observed in homosexual activities which have nothing to do with domination.
Equal protection under the law prevents "majority rule" over the minority!
In this country, once upon a time, it also meant whites marry whites only. Or the same faiths marry the same faiths. The definition HAS been changed already, numerous times!
I see you can't refute my point there. Moving on then.
And you're losing!
Demonstrate how!
The "majority" you say? At least half the country, if not more, supports same sex marriage. Hardly a "majority." Besides, the only opinion which will count in the end is the law.
So I guess that means infertile couples or couples who don't intend to have children shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? As I said before, children is not a requirement for marriage, nor do you need marriage to have children.
Matrimony is a religious institution. Marriage is a civil institution under the perview of the law. The religious aspect is merely ceremonial, but with no legal weight.
Most biologists would disagree with you!
And you're really stretching your ignorance on the subject today!
It's been shown that children of gay parents do just as well as those with straight parents.
Why don't you cite your sources for your questionably spurious quotes from Mr. Washington!
Unhappy, here are some quotes for YOU:
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor
"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor
The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803
"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816
"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819
The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson
Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine
Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine
Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]
Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)
I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Benjamin Franklin
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac
Hooray for NC! It's about time the state stood up to the pressure of the extreme left.
Wish we could have voted here in NY as well. But as you all know, our democratic representatives can be bought.
I guess that will dispel the myth that the country is in favor of homosexual unions(liberals claim 53% of the people are in favor); not in NC at least.
“It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” - George Washington
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.” - George Washington
“We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” - George Washington
I guess the people in NC are listening to the words of our FIRST President, one who has sacrificed so much for his country.
3thirty3
Lot's of comments here, so why not liven it up some more;
" Chuck and Larry are not going to bear offspring."
I guess that's part of 'evolution' - sort of God's way of weeding out 'nonproductive' characteristics.
RUN!!
THE CHRISTIANS ARE COMING AFTER OUR LIVES...
oh wait..they just killed me...
Sarah - Love your posts. I have spent quite a bit of time in the Cashiers, NC area. I LOVE the mountains but I am amazed at the basic hate and ignorance of the average NC person I came in contact with. As long as I stayed in the "tourist" areas, things were ok but as soon as I strayed off the beaten path and had some actual conversations, I had some jaw dropping moments where I was absolutely sure that some of the comments I heard were in jest but they were serious. I live in Florida so I am used to craziness but this is unreal.
Unhappy, i live in NY too, we have WAY less bigots then the south.
not one person has EVER complain about a gay person...
religion isnt even a big thing here, people keep it indoors, they dont try to convert you.
we keep to our own, no one tries to downgrade you here...
and im sayin this becauze i live in the 5 boroughs...
idk which pig hole your bigot ass came from
also, NY IS a liberal state....considering all the corporation, we have resisted right wing stupidity and religious bigotry. keep the hate to yourself, NY is all about loving and celebrating the culture in our city
as for NC, you are more then welcome to join the listen of beating people with the bible...
im sure jesus did that b4
and may you guys start a bill that will ban DIVORCE as well
No tears please, it's a waste of good suffering. Ouch! As expected, a bunch of gay supporters are here whining because people don't accept homosexuality and voted to ban it from law. It really says something that people voted a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Civil unions afford many of the same benefits, on a state level. What compelling state interest does gay marriage have?
Gay marriages are really redifined civil unions because they're not federally recognized. In addition to that, civil unions also descriminate about who can and cannot have one. Homosexuality isn't viewed as a lesser sexual orientation, it's viewed as deviate one. In addition, trying to redefine marriage as anything other than between man and woman opens a pandora's box to other groups as well. bestiality is legal in about 10 states and pedophiles are trying to legalize their sexual orienations as well. Face it, homosexuality is in the same deviant bed as the rest of them. Nambla is a homosexual organization.
ErinNJ, those quotes mean nothing. Those quotes from George Washington was in the earlier years of his life. The quotes I posted were in the last part of his Presidency. A President who spoke from experience. ( Farewell Address 1796)
The fact that you posted Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin make no difference to me. I could easily have posted other quotes as well from other people.
Sockurmouth: It figures. You live in NYC. The most liberal part of NY. Come upstate and you will find a different atmosphere. Not only are we sick of liberals, we are tired of supporting lazy NYC. And yes, you will hear about Jesus much more often.
Ah Republicans, gotta love 'em. "Government should stay out of our lives!" they say. "Give me liberty, or give me death!" they say. "Oh, unless you are making a law against the queers. They make me insecure about my own sexuality...Then it's OK!" they say.
Shut the fck up about your religion. I'm so sick of debating this sh!t. Your religion has no grounds to make any calls in this country, that is a fact. It is based on nothing, and you're using it to suppress the rights of others. (You get certain benefits from the government so i don't want to hear about how its a religious right.) If a Rabbi wanted to preach in a Christian church that would be a claim you could call foul on, not this.
Generally speaking, the phrase "everyone knows" means simply that the writer is speculating, nothing more and nothing less.
That "flatulence" of which you speak is not methane (one and only one of the contributors to greenhouse gases, and even at that, human flatulence is a minor contributor compared to bovine contributions) - it's air, and it also happens in heterosexual sex. I guess you've never heard or heard of a "vaginal fart", but that's simply air that has been compressed in the vagina by thrusting.
Further, although such sexual "farts" may occur with anal penetration, it would be difficult for them to occur between two women. And that, too, is a homosexual act.
For whomever wrote that nonsense, please, next time, THINK before opening your mouth or putting your hands on your keyboard. If you do so, you;ll have a chance at not showing yourself to be a first-rate fool.
And posting a persons individual expression of faith really has no relevance to the country as a whole anyways.
hey are just as valid, if not more so, than yours! Of course they would mean nothing to you since you would simply ignore them.
Next will come the legal challenges.
@Hopeful American
You can't be serious can you? You honestly don't realize that the "issues" kids would have explaining their gay parents are entirely caused by people LIKE YOU. Why would a child have any discomfort explaining they have two parents of the same sex to someone who isn't bigoted against that. YOU are the one making it hard for these kids not their gay parents. Duh!!
3thirty3, I dare you, no I double dare you, to name one heterosexual married couple that has been hurt in any manner by the marriage of two homosexual individuals. Please include details about how they have been hurt. Be specific here, be very specific.
You won't be able to do it because the marriage of any two people has nothing whatsoever to do with the marriage of any other two people. With that in mind, why do you want to deny happiness to anyone? And please, please PLEASE, refrain from using any reference to any religion, and in particular to christianity. After all, being christian means living a christ-like life, and there is nothing christ-like about hatred.
Personally, I'm not keen on homosexuality, but I advocate equal rights for people that aren't detrimental to society. I say, let them have it, most are productive members that contribute just like you and I.
Sarah
I don't always agree with you. But when I do, I get a chuckle out of your comments.
People from North Carolina can always come to Canada to get married, where, since 2005, marriage has been defined nationwide as "the union of any two people to the exclusion of all others", as people from all the other backwards States have always done.
Canadian Conservatives STRONGLY SUPPORT same sex marriage, as well as they support a woman's right to choose, and universal single payer health care (including paying for abortions done in hospitals) in Canada.
Radical right wing Conservatives (in Canadian terms) are centrists in American terms.
I've been married for over 50 years. Got 4 children who are in happy marriages of their own. Between them we have 8 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren and none are gay. At least not yet.
Now with that said, I cannot understand how a group of people that want the government to stay out of their lives want to pass laws to govern how people live their lives. It appears that sanity does not rule.
My belief is that those that oppose same sex unions are being spiteful since the law is not going to stop them...it's just going to punish them by denying them the same privileges that married couples enjoy. Not the sexual part but the financial part of tax breaks and insurance coverages. Do they feel threatened? Hard to say but I do know they feel very uncomfortable in the presence of someone that is gay. I have a few gay friend and they are some of the nicest people you would ever want to meet. It's not their fault that nature played a cruel trick on them by making them more attracted to the same sex than the opposite sex but here we have those that proclaim to be compassionate that insist on punishing them for something they have no control over. So much for the love thy fellow man bit.
I'm just so tired of seeing this nonsense. It is simple. If you believe in the basic rights belonging to all Americans, then you believe that we are all entitled to equal treatment under the law. Period. As it is, we do not have equal treatment under the law. If, for example, I want to marry my lover who is a citizen of another country, I may do so, and confer upon my spouse American citizenship. However, a gay man or woman may not do the same. This is unequal treatment under the law. Period. This is unambiguous, whatever your personal opinion of homosexuality.
If you don't want the government "endorsing someone's lifestyle" and whatnot, then you should campaign against marriage benefits (or penalties) for all of us, whether we're gay, straight, or purple.
The Grand Ol Party that says it wants to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, yet it just expanded GOVERNMENT into your lives. I'm not a homosexual, but I know forcing GOVERNMENT to tell us who we can marry is oppressive. There used to be a sign that said: "Government- serving and protecting the crap out of you". What a perfect example; thank God, GOVERNMENT can tell me what to do in my daily life. Thanks to all the religious leaders, tea parties and conservatives for MORE GOVERNMENT.
Marriage is a club. Like when you were little and you nailed a few planks of wood together and put up a sign outside that said "No girls allowed!"
I'm a straight woman who lived with her boyfriend for years, no need for marriage at all. Our lives were happy and full. When I lost my job and my health insurance, my boyfriend proposed marriage so that I may be covered under his employers insurance. I agreed. We got married on a Thursday, in jeans. It costs us $111 for the paper that permitted me to be linked to this man.
Fast forward almost ten years. My husband has lost his job and subsequently we lost our health insurance coverage. He managed to find another job but the insurance only covers him as the employee, I am not included. However, because we're married I also don't qualify for medicaid!
So now we're getting a divorce so we can both continue to have health insurance. As a single woman who is underemployed, I would qualify for health aid and not be left out in the cold like I am as a wife of an underemployed husband.
Like I said before. Marriage is a special club and the people in charge of it are putting up signs and rules and yelling WE DON'T LIKE YOU SO YOU CAN'T JOIN! Nanananabooboo.
Well. I suggest that gay couples band together and "marry" each other. Two gay dudes hook up with two gay chicks and pick an opposite sex partner from that couple to marry. That way everyone gets covered under the financial umbrella of marriage yet still get to live and sleep with the ones they LOVE.
Marriage is a game. LOVE is the true union. Fight the rules but PLAY the game. If they change the rules, adapt! Frustrate the jerks who want to fold up the board and go home. Frustrate them until they leave the ball behind for everyone to play with.
Not only are the founding fathers rolling in their graves about this supression of freedom, there are a host of others.
Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness is under attack.
Collective Bargaining- That which workers gave their lives to obtain is under attack.
Right to Vote- Under attack
Freedom of Choice- Under attack
Freedom of Religion- Under attack (ask any Muslim)
Right to Protest (ask any conservative how they feel about the 99%ers)
THis is but a part of the attacks on our nation's freedom. Republicans lead the masses in their attacks, all the while claiming they are the bearer of freedom.
Yes, republicans believe in freedom, as long as they are the only ones that have it.
Gordy327: Here you go. Happy now?
“You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.”Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention - George Washington's Speech to Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779, in John C. Fitzpatrick, editor, The Writings of George Washington, Vol. XV (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 55.
"There exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” - (George Washington - First Inaugural address 1789)
Here's another quote as well.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ~ JOHN ADAMS
Don't worry Gays your time for justice will come! plenty of us straight people love, respect and accept you. God loves you too. Don't let this speed bump get you down. there were many many speed bumps on the way to the complete abolition of slavery. also plenty on the road to giving women and blacks the right to vote. some day all of these neanderthals will die off and hopefully peace can finally come. this is not the america i want to live in. this is supposed to be the land of the free. it has turned into the land of the bigots. equal rights for all.~ PEACE~
Unhappy,
And you just committed libel. If you're going to accuse me of "plagery" please prove it. I wrote that post, on my own, I've been posting it for quite some time.
If you're going to accuse me of something like that I have some rights. The first would be to see your evidence against me. So please...
That would be????
I don't think you know what plagery is. If I'm copying and pasting MY OWN WRITING, that's not plagerizing anything. I wrote it.
My guess is that if the law made marrriage restricted to CHRISTIAN men and women it would have passed by twice the vote!!!!
I can't help wondering a few things that maybe the anti-gay marriage group can help me to understand...
1- If marriage is so sacred, why is it so easy to get a divorce?
2-If it is, as some insist, from the Bible and only adultery can invalidate the vows,"till death to we part", why do we have no fault divorce?
3- If it is so sacred and a gift from God, why do "religious " people allow other Christians to marry over and over again. Speaking for myself, if I give someone a gift and they disrespect it, I will never give them another one. So why are people allowed to drink from this cup over and over again when all they do is spit it out?
It seems to me that the "religious" people only want one restriction on it. "No homos allowed." I'm a heterosexual, a Christian, and believe in marriage as a sacred vow, never to be broken. But with the majority of people making a farce of marriage, this prohibition is just as big a farce. I will be curious to see how long it takes to collapse this dissenting view even though it is posted in all earnesty.
A personal expression of faith which Predates the ratification of the Constitution.
Why don't you include the rest of the paragraph:
And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Washington was also expressing his personal beliefs. But he also considered liberty and the government of the people to be equally important.
John Adams was addressing the Massachusetts militia. He was not speaking about the conditions under which the Constitution was drafted. Here's more from Mr. Adams:
in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," (emphasis mine, with credit to fellow NV'r Proud Pagan for the reference)
It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Oh, but this is no mere mention, no random thought; he goes on:
As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.
And he continues to emphasize his point:
Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
Here, John Adams is speaking clearly and specifically to the conditions under which the U.S. Constitution and the law was written.
The original "Men in tights" that wrote the Constitution, dressed up in wigs and talked funny, but were just real men, showing the world that they are entitled to dress for the occasion. If you don't work in the fields, you dress like them.
I don't suppose That the "All men are created equal' part is just filler material for the REAL words?
60% of the population of this state voted... (this is a landslide in politics) and Amendment 1 passed.
If you are not from NC, and/or did not vote, then you have no real reason to comment here other then to vent your frustrations with democracy and the republic you live in.
60% vote for Amendment 1 and record voter turn out to boot... END OF STORY!
Anyone who is with the 40%, who LOST, do not understand democratic voting.
Anyone who claims the majority can vote on the rights of any minority (to mean numbers, not legal minority status), does not understand that we are a Constitutional Republic.
Sho,
You obviously don't understand how a Republic works. We shouldn't be voting on civil rights, period.
Since SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a civil right over 14 times, why are we putting it up to a vote?
We're a Republic, so there is not question of state's rights here. SCOTUS, starting in Loving v Virginia ruled that marriage was a civil right. On top of that, the legislation banning gay marriage doesn't pass strict scrutiny and has a religious basis (1st Amendment). On top of that, you can claim gender discrimination in contractual law (Civil Rights Act of 1964). On top of that we have an implied right to privacy in the 9th and 4th Amendments. On top of that we have equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).
Those are civil rights issues, and as a Republic we don't vote on civil rights. And don't give me that 10th Amendment crap, the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states, effectively making the 10th all but null and void.
@Shosyn,
This is true.
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to determine WHO has the right to speak anywhere in the USA.
End of what story? Im sure if voter turn-out from such a CLEARLY significant (lol) state means the END OF STORY, then I guess dueling banjos is up to replace star spangled banner?
LMAO....oh ok, so only the winning side understand democratic voting... if you lose, clearly you have no cognizance of how it's done....
Sigh, no wonder only about 33% of the American population can actually tell you what the 3 branches of government are.
@Hopeful American
So if a heterosexual is on their 7th marriage is that not a "perversion of marriage."
Seriously, you would think that this block of southern states, which refuse equality would be all for abortion....
This is not my logic, from the comments I've read, it seems a whole lot of people don't like homosexuals - well, since one is born that way, the less babies born, the lower the number of homosexuals (sarc)...
I cannot believe the rudeness of so many posters - why do you care if a man loves a man or a woman loves a woman? Why do you care if they can file joint tax returns? What business is it of yours at all to dictate who loves who when both are consenting adults?
What did the article say, "last holdout in the South," can you all secede again, please? ... excuse me, I meant, "y'all."
Again at Hopeful American: I fully disagree with you that two moms or two dads is "creepy." I'm proud to report that my friends (who are gay) have wonderful, well-rounded, intelligent and TOLERANT children. I have serious doubts that your children could be tolerant with a mother like you - and that's your fault!
A victory for oppression, discrimination and hate! North Carolina must be proud.
Perfect summation Emanuel - they should have that as a license plate option!
The simple of act of sodomy was punishable by death during the times of the founding fathers. Turning in their graves? Yea, only for the fact that this is even a discussion
Feel free to define what constituted sodomy in their time.
Ben Franklin, the greatest founding father, likely would have supported it.
Guess you've forgotten what happened in California (apparently the powers-that-be in NC have, too).
Yeah, and I wouldn't have been able to vote, kids worked 18 hours a day, and they wore ugly, woolen wigs.
That's what we call progress.
The Founding Father's (with the exception of Adams) were too busy raping their slaves, or having slaves raped, to worry about gay marriage...
Good afternoon Sarah...I'm just catching up today on those who are against equality. Nice posts by you by the way! Keep up the good work!
Shosyn
Given your concept, the majority have the right to veto minority rights.
Should the majority vote on slavery? If it were your concept, slavery would still be in place today.
They are God given rights, not mans.
Thanks, Black Kettle! And can I just add...
NEITHER of which was punishable by death.
Did they have that right, too, MO?
It simply comes down to this:
Can religion be used as justification to take away the rights of American citizens?
To Christians who believe "yes, religion can be used as justification to take away rights"... Muslim extremists who support Sharia Law salute you. You are one and the same. Both of you use religion to oppress and limit the rights of those you do not agree with.
Sorry Sarah, you would have to ask a person from the South who has not evolved in the domain of equality for ALL.... I'm a Yankee, so I'm not versed in "Southerisms" :)
First, we persecute anyone that is not a White Male.
Next, we persecute anyone that is not White.
Now, we persecute anyone that is not heterosexual.
Will we not learn?
Repost which I just wrote in different seed:
I have to ask this question to all of those who insist that marriage should only be between a man and a woman:
If marriage is to be only between a man and a woman then I assume North Carolina and the other states with that law would have NO Problem if Chaz Bono marries a heterosexual woman? Correct?
Chaz Bono is legally a male now, formerly known as Chastity Bono, Cher & Sunny Bono's daughter (for those who don't recognize the name)
Ruken, come on now. Address the issue, not the user. You are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
So the 14th nullifed the 10th by incorporating it it to the states.
Case law according to Cornell does not seem to agree with you that the 10th is effectively null and void.
Lee-2124113, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Americandude, you are suspended for a month for violating rules # 1 and # 5 of the Code of Honor.
@ Black Kettle
Let's not bring Chaz Bono into this. These vermin who are against "the Gay horde" (not really their words, but sure sounds like fun) are even more so against Trans-people. Take a look around at any state that has recently attempted to pass "bathroom bills". So in their minds, Chaz is still a woman and could only marry a man. They conflate sex with gender, and understand the scientific and sociological ramification of neither.
As a North Carolinian and conservative, I feel our state constitution has been bastardized. I strongly believe in LESS government interference in our lives. A true conservative would feel the same. I strongly believe in separation of church and state and not allowing religious opinion dictate legislation. A true conservative would feel the same.
What my fellow North Carolinians demonstrated yesterday is nothing less than religious insecurity and ideological hypocrisy.
And typos comment was collapsed for what reason? The only people here who have a brain are Rtypo and Sally... And I'm pretty sure sally is a programmed moderator for this site.
Bassai,
First, your copy and pasting really didn't say anything. Can you provide an actual link, so I can read it in context, instead of pieces copied and pasted?
Second, what it did say, supports my position. Basically, you're proving the point that the 10th Amendment, before the civil rights movement and the civil rights act of 1964, was used to justify segregation.
Yeah, they passed the 14th Amendment, incorporating the Bill of Rights to the states in the 1860's, and yes, they didn't really pay attention to it, for 100 years, but now we do. And that was helped along by the civil rights act of 1964.
So, my point was completely correct. People who say the 10th Amendment allows the states to name a religion, are WRONG, because of the 14th.
But, if you want to party like it's 1875, be my guess.
NAMBLA is a homosexual organization.
That is like saying the GOP is a racist organization, or that the VFW is a biker gang...false corollaries and straw man arguments are low blows in a rational forum.
As expected, a bunch of gay supporters are here whining because people don't accept homosexuality and voted to ban it from law. It really says something that people voted a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Civil unions afford many of the same benefits, on a state level. What compelling state interest does gay marriage have?
As to the first part of that paragraph...how would you feel if your government dictated what religion you practiced? Or your right to speak out, including on this forum? Or made it where you could be held indefinitely without charges, or otherwise were deprived of rights you and I take for granted every day? I'd be screaming too. As to the second...apparently there are those so insecure in their own skin that they can't even accept civil unions, gay OR straight. Never mind the fact that the divorce rate in NC is nearly 4% (New York? 2.5%...and Massachusetts and Vermont, where civil unions are recognized? It's 1.8% and 3.3% respectively), as of 2009, the latest statistics.
Gay marriages are really redifined civil unions because they're not federally recognized. In addition to that, civil unions also descriminate about who can and cannot have one. Homosexuality isn't viewed as a lesser sexual orientation, it's viewed as deviate one. In addition, trying to redefine marriage as anything other than between man and woman opens a pandora's box to other groups as well. bestiality is legal in about 10 states and pedophiles are trying to legalize their sexual orienations as well.
I have a hard time believing the "Gateway" Theory...Women were given the right to vote, and it wasn't the end of civilization as we know it. Slavery was abolished in 1865 (essentially) and it probably sucked if you where on the losing side of that war, but the country survived and thrived after excising that birth defect of our country. What would you consider "deviant" sexuality? Adultery? Oral sex? In vitro fertilization and sperm donations? If anything, this rule is government intervention at its worst. Next thing you know, your government may tell you who to marry, when, how many kids, etc. So much for freedom of choice.
That's my take on it...
You have got to be kidding me. I would laugh if that statment wasn't so offensive.
If that's true, then the Daytona 500 is a Klan rally. To conflate pedophilia and homosexuality is just wrong. To do so would mean that the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest homosexual organization in the world. After all, they're the group that has the staff-members who fornicate little boys and then do nothing about it.
I know at least 2 dozen gay men and about a dozen lesbians. Of them I can count on ZERO hands the number of them that have ever had sex with a minor. None of them. They're gay not pedophiles.
And conversely, what compelling state interest is there for denying gay people the right to get married? But as you said, "on a state level." There are myriad reasons on the federal level why gay couples would want to be married. Now, if you fight tooth and nail to get civil unions to afford the same rights as marriage NATIONALLY, there probably wouldn't be the uproar as there is. Except that "SEPARATE BUT EQUAL" IS NEVER REALLY EQUAL, only separate. But you already knew that and ignored the fact because it interfered with your handy little bigotry.
They would be which ones? The States of: Confusion, Inebriation, Intoxication, Denial? Ones that have poor dental hygiene practices (i.e. nothing but a bunch of buck-toothed yokels)?
You forget that CHILDREN CANNOT GIVE CONSENT. We're talking about CONSENTING adults here. Do try to keep up. Or return to remedial comprehension class and let the adults speak.
... what Sarah said :c)
Is anyone surprised? Its a southern state....they hate who they are told republicanjeebus wants them to hate.
A true Cristian does not hate anyone, they hate the sin but not the person. If someone tells you they are a Cristian and that they hate you for any reason, then they are not a Cristian, but rather a hypocrite, and there are too many hypocrites in the world today, both religious and atheist. Jesus hates sin, but we are to forgive the sinner, and hate the sin, and according to Gods law homosexuality is a sin. You have the right to not agree, as I have the right not to agree with the gay advocates, however, no one has the right to hate a person for any reason, that is contrary to Gods law.
You have to excuse Randy. He's only spewing what he was told to spew in liberalism school at times when a group with the moral high ground challenges their views.
That would be forgiveness as Jesus commanded.
You'd have to excuse STexan, he's too busy being a religious hypocrite.
Even:"no one has the right to hate a person for any reason, that is contrary to Gods law."
I agree with your sentiment, and especially concerning this issue, but you overstate. The actions and damage caused by some are worthy of society's hatred and judgement. Bold statements declaring what you want the Bible to say are different than what it actually says.
Don't Force Your Religious Views onto other people! Keep it in your damn churches. It's you Christians that are Drawing people away from the bible with your comments and your hate @!$%#. I'm sick of it that my Girlfriend has to Live a LIE and pretend she's not "Gay" just to make other people Happy and so her Religious Family doesn't DISOWN her. It's SICK.
Certainly worthy of hate and judgment. But, that is reserved to God who chooses to forgive. Christians are confronted by their own worthlessness in God's eyes which is why it is impossible to hate others. We are all the same in his eyes. Once we are overcome by his deep and abiding love we choose to follow his ways and invite others to the same revelation.
More minions talking to God on a 1 way radio! And it's almost always right wing Republicans who are supposedly about the government STAYING OUT OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!
I just don't get the absurd amount of people in this country that go around, "I hate queers." And you ask them why and there answer is, "Cause they're queer." In other words, I hate you because I hate you.
What is this amendment "protecting?" What is so sacred about only a man and a woman having the right to make each other's lives miserable for the rest of eternity? More than that, what would homosexuals getting married do to society that's so bad? Let's look at the pros:
-Lower divorce rate(I'll give you that it's so new, the numbers aren't really there yet)
-Adoptive/otherwise children of LGBT couples typically go on to better educations(On a side note, since these couples can't have children with each other there's never a chance for unwanted pregnancy or abortion, and leads to truely loving a child rather that just bringing one into the world.)
-Lower domestic violence rates
The far right needs there own section of the country where they and there other white friends can be segregated from the gays, blacks, Asians, Jews, and as one person in this discussion put it 'abnormals'!
at least im content in knowing i'll be in hell with all the other americans who think they arent going to hell.
but as the bible states "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
newsflash, ALL AMERICANS are rich by the worlds standards.
as such, you're all going to hell whether you like it or not.
it's in the bible...read it. i mean, if thats your only logic against gays, well I hate to be the bearer of the bad news...but you all are FAR MORE SCREWED than you think.
hey, dont hate the messenger...i just deliver the GOOD NEWS.
Wrong. Recent video from a church in NC, where they talk truth about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc
Blanket statements about either side of the argument are wrong and do nothing but promote hatred and ignorance.
If all you Christian hypocrites will be in Heaven, I'd rather be in Hell.
Considering more than half of all U.S. heterosexual marriages between a man and a women end in divorce, that group isn't exactly the finest adjudicator of either law or relationships. Even worse, given that this same failure prone group insists on spewing forth into society all manner of cretins that fill up our prisons, it's amazing they have the gall to pull the morality card.
@Ruken: Not all the Christians are hypocrites -- the video I linked is of a pastor and his congregation meeting to talk about Amendment One. I think it's important to realize there are allies and opponents on "both sides of the aisle."
What a freaking cop out. If Christians actually did this, this is how things would go...
They'd have nothing to say about gay marriage, they just wouldn't get gay married.
They'd have nothing to say about abortion, they just wouldn't have them.
They'd have nothing to say about (enter right wing fear/wedge issue of choice here) they just wouldn't engage in (enter right wing fear/wedge issue of choice here).
I know, but they are seemingly in the minority.
I was baptized and confirmed Catholic, until I was about 19 and realized how hypocritical the Catholic Church really is.
I now avoid any organized religion, and am of the opinion that it does more harm than good. Religion should be a private matter between a person and their deity.
Matt,
Then I'm going to say, what I hear a lot of Christians say about Muslims. The good ones need to speak out against the fear mongering, judgmental, hateful ones who we've seen attempting to legislate morality.
Get your members in line with what the "actual Christianity" is or separate yourselves from them.
@Ruken: Agreed, but still, I think it's important to point out.
I'll repost the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc
It's pretty important, as I know my sister has struggled with these sorts of issues her whole life, namely acceptance, despite living in a "tolerant" area. Neil deGrasse Tyson (of physics fame, e.g. Nova) tweeted the link earlier, hearkening back to his father's fight during the Civil Rights Movement, and the pastor in the video is spot-on. I've been trying to spread it around, so that people can see this isn't a "morality" or "religion" debate, it's a Constitutional Rights issue, and even *some* of the churches are realizing it.
@Sarah:
Actually, the video link I posted is them "speaking out." And for the record, I'm not a Christian, I'm atheist, but I still always try to be voice of reason in all events. Absolutes tend to make us hate each other. *shrug*
Matt,
You'll have a point, when what's happening in that video is the norm and not the exception. Until then, we have a duty as Americans who want equal protection under the law, to speak out about the perversion Christianity has become in this country.
Especially when they use Christianity as weapon against entire groups of people who have never done a damn thing.
My statue is bleeding! What should I do?
Wow, how many of you have twisted my words to fit your needs. Such a terrible shame. To speak of God to some of you, you who have no trouble accepting of, reading books or viewing movies with vile and wicked creatures that represent all that is evil, of people doing unspeakable acts to others, is like throwing holy water on a vampire. How you writhe with anger and lash out at the very mention of God or Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Such a shame that you can not accept Gods law as it is contrary to your basest desires, so you reject him and his law. When all is said and done, I am fear he will reject you just as you have rejected him. Such a shame really.
Such a shame you can't use the brains the good Lord gave you, to understand that we live in a secular nation and that he/she has better sh** to do. Is that why you're so judgmental??? Picking up his/her slack, since he/she is too busy dealing with the world's REAL problems?
Evenstar, "...they hate the sin but not the person." Yea, yea, the old "hate the sin, love the sinner" argument. This has to be the epitome of Christian judgmental hypocrisy. Who are you to say who is, and who is not, a sinner? Did God or Jesus himself give you that responsibility? Live your life the best way you feel you can. Let others live their lives the best way they feel they can. Enough judgment already.
Too bad Maine and California (among others NOT in "The South") also voted to institutionalize bigotry and prejudice.
Get this straight: I think deeply religious people (not to be confused with spiritual people) are incredibly stupid. I get angry only when 'god' is used as rational for making laws.
At most, I pity you for believing in a fairytale.
Many of us didn't reject him. We rejected the hypocritical institution known as the Catholic Church that preaches love and peace but practices hate and intolerance.
How many Muslims did the Catholic Church slaughter during the Crusades on orders from the Pope? How many young children did priests destroy, then have others cover it up as opposed to asking forgiveness.
I have found the best way to honor Jesus is to be a good person. This starts with treating all human beings as equals regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. I will not fear death or eternal damnation simply because some church-going hypocrite says I should. I have found that by helping others, and trying to be the best person I can be, I have found Jesus in my own way.
I won't let anyone take that from me.
Your God may be against same sex marriage, my God says it's good and loving. Guess what you are really saying is you have a right to deny a right to another because it's your God that is right. What a travesty that is in a democracy. Unamerican.
Let's do keep in mind that this setback comes in a state that didn't ratify the Constitutional Amendment giving women the right to vote until 1971, half a century after it became law! And hopefully, our US Supreme Court will see the light as it did on interracial marriage and render these idiotic anti-gay laws moot.
Even,
I'm a Christian, but I'm havin a hard time figuring out exactly what your point is.
The rest;
True, history and people have often given Christianity a bad name (though many do like to overstate and dwell on Catholic history), but I think painting the entire religion with the bigot brush is just a knee-jerk convenience for some
If this law passes, hundreds of companies and businesses will pull out of North Carolina. I have heard that hundreds have said they will consider leaving the state. They also say that they do not have to do business in North Carolina.
So, North Carolina citizens, if you want to watch your economy die, just go ahead and pass this draconian law. Pass this fundamentalist reconstructionist Theocratic Law. prove to us that the Church rules this State not the people. Prove that you follow the leader not yourselves. Retreat to the stone age, see if I care. You will only hurt yourselves and drive out probably 1000 or more businesses and corporations.
So go ahead and do as your church leaders command, vote yes on this stupid amendment.
However, if you care about civil rights, if you care about Equal Marriage. If you want to remain with the rest of the Civilized world. If you don't want to see 1000s of businesses leave the state, then please vote no on Amendment 1.
And thats my opinion.
Totally agreed. I hate it when states put any thing on a ballot that's got a negative or anti attached to it. Because it always limits the voters choice to trampling on someones dream or doing nothing at all. Notice they would never be so bold to go double or nothing and wording a state admentment like this,"Are you in favor of homosexual marriage being legal or illegal?" One choice still gets your ends met, but what if there are enough thinking people in that state....?
Mag;
"If you don't want to see 1000s of businesses leave the state, then please vote no on Amendment 1."
I hate to shed some reality on your little fantasy, but companies leave states because of overegulation and overtaxation. If you want to ask 1000's, start with all the ex-California companies residing in Texas, and Florida and Arizona and the South on and on and on. Just sayin, they're not movin to dark blue, gay marriage supporting, states.
So many religious out there, so many Gods, which one is the real one?
Let's also remind that any religious that still exist to this day has its fair share of bloodshed and perform countless atrocities over the past thousands of years.
If you all like to have God/Priest to be on top of the government, you may like Middle East a lot. I heard it is a paradise there with a little taste of Middle Age.
Yeah, I'm sure those new minimum-wage jobs in Texas with no benefits are really helping peoples' lives. I can't imagine any good can come from turning your state into a third-world country just to be able to brag about jobs in time for an election.
No, actually, for Christians, homosexuality is no more a sin than eating shell fish, or sleeping with a woman on her period. When Jesus came, he established a new covenant which states we are to obey the 10 commandments, but follow Jesus' word. Jesus never spoke on the issue of homosexuality.
Excellent point, WeeMee. My god (the FSM) is also for gay marriage, which is why I voted against amendment one this morning.
Cause losing your home and job in California is such a blast, huh? Live in California and I love it, but have spent time in Texas (hardly third world). My preference would be for a realistic state government in my home state, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
So funny that there are some that still claim that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible.
So are having a tattoo, eating shrimp, wearing polycotton blends, disobeying your parents, etc, etc, etc. Yet, I bet those same folks who vote against gay marriage are sinning all the time.
Can you imagine if they had an amendment that said that people who eat shrimp cannot get married? How would you vote?
Randy, it also went down in California..not a southern state but a very liberal one. Has nothing to do with repubs and south.
Right....
RAmen Brother! RAmen!
The constitution was designed to GIVE rights to people, not limit them.
The only national ammendment that limited rights was prohibition. Not a huge success.
The saddest thing about all this - well, wait, the constitutional rights of 5-10% of the population are involved, so the second saddest thing - is that it allows incredibly stupid bigots to claim they have the "high moral ground."
The bible is a mish-mash of contradictions created by louse-ridden goat-herders 2000 years ago and continually amended ever since by people seeking power and money. If you want to worship it, fine. If you want to worship the tree or rocks in your back yard, fine. But to pretend that either the bible or the tree in your back yard should guide US law is insane. It is to behave exactly like the islamists whose brains were flash frozen in the fifth century, and whom the bible wavers constantly deplore. Pretending the bible okays persecution of people you don't like is as american as plymouth rock, but it's just an excuse for your petty bigotry and hate.
Actually nobody really cares what these Anti-God people are talking about. This is just another way for them to excuse their sinful behavior. If Gay Marriage was such a great thing, why is that they need to convince everybody that they are correct?
Second, to all those Christians on this site who stand up for Jesus and the bible, Don't lose hope. We will not allow them to take our country.
This not a cop out, it is just the way it is, love your neighbor. Yes the church has many sins to answer for in the past and even so today. I am Catholic and I am appalled at much of what the church has done and now does. Why am I still Catholic, because I believe in what the church is suppose to be, not what man, in their lust for power, greed and their vanity has made it. I can see why many reject the church as it now is, but not God. I believe in what our Lord and Savior said it is to be. Hypocrites are as hypocrites do, and I wont have anything to do with them. Martin Luther saw that and if I had lived during his time, I more than likely would have followed him, but I live in this time, not then. You say I am judgemental, I say I am calling it as it is. You see someone murder another person - he is a murderer. Are you not going to say so? Or are you going to look the other way because they are a nice person? Is it being judgemental to say that that person is a murderer when you witnessed it? Of course not, you would say so to prevent that person from doing it again. You dont know the person, do you hate him or do you hate what he did? A true Cristian would hate the deed, but not the person. To to hate the sin is what God, who wants us to walk in his ways, would do, but not the sinner. One of the oldestquestions is why do we suffer? The answer is because man lets man suffer. Because they simply dont care! Children preyed upon by adults, starving families, no medical attention that many need andcan not afford, so they die. No one does anything about it. I know some few "Cristian's" who help out as much as they can, but the problem is too big for just a few people, it needs the attention of all the people. You hint that I am not intelligent and that you are, then I say to you, use that vast intelligence of yours and end the suffering of so many people due to the callousness and apathy that man has towards his fellow man. Love your Neighbor, be in the world, not of the world!
Evenstar, it is a cop out. As a Catholic myself, I was NEVER taught to "hate the sin." I was taught that it was not up to any mortal man to decide what is a sin and what is not. That is God's job, let him do it. Homosexuality is no more a sin to a Christian than eating shellfish. You can't pick and choose which "God's law" you think is a sin and which ones aren't. If you are going to live by Leviticus, then you need to follow ALL of it.
The constitution was called "The Bill of Rights" by our forefathers.
It is blatently against the nature of the document to issue Ammendments that seek to limit rights.
It is one thing to not make it legal. It is another thing to create an Ammendment (state or national) that limits rights.
Christians... have you ever wondered about what will happen when you're not the dominant religion? The world remembers the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, The Dark Ages are especially popular, but the point is... we know what you've done, what your true face is, that your religion isn't about "love". You sit there singing about Hellfire and Brimstone upon anyone with a different life or religion than yours, you create stories of demons and burning pits of fire to scar your children for life so they'll join your cult...
... And yet, you don't have the foresight to realize something. Have you seen what Muslims are currently going through for their own religious ideals? Let's have a reality check: They are not trusted, some even outright hated, all for the doctrine they abide by and actions they've taken. Now, flip that around to Christians here in about 30, maybe 40 years. Everyone you've hurt, all the progress you've stopped, all the shame you've wrought will be centerfold. We will remember all of your actions when you're the minority.
You can sit there claiming the "moral highground", when in fact you're hateful, spiteful, vengeful bigots that sing of the Apocalypse just so you can make up for your shortcomings as a decent human being. But we will remember, the images you cast today will ring into the future, and the second you lose the majority, when people finally let go of your "Holy Word"... how do you think people will view you, much less react to you?
Look at those that argue against you in this forum. They are the future. I hope you'll enjoy greatly the hatred and bigotry towards YOU that you will be facing, and are already facing. It's happening right now, even as we speak. You desperately cling to power fading, and it's only a matter of time before your religion goes the way of the ancient Pantheons, and the bile you spew, the venom bubbling from your mouth, will only drive more and more away as you flail about, kicking and screaming like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Honestly, I can't wait for you and your entire religion to fall flat on your face, sinking face first into the excrement that's oozing out of your mouth for so many years.
More liberals who like to bash christians? Yeah, that why all your talking points make no sense. You really don't have any good arguments for wanting gay marriage. Marriage is not in the Constitution, so get over it. You already have all the rights under the constitution and the amendments. So what more is there?
Since marriage is based on morality(nobody is forcing you to get married in today's age), and all religions have some sense of morality(except atheists who act like they are the most immoral), it therefore makes no sense to grant it to the immoral.
If an atheist wants to agree with their homosexual counterparts, let them get a civil union too. Afterall to them marriage is nothing, right?
I am a straight person and have met a lot of people in my life time mostly straight and a few gay men and women. If you are as religious as many of you "claim" to be than you are aware you have a right worship in your own way freely. I haven't seen one word written anywhere that says you have a right to impose your religious will on anybody. Church and State should never cross lines. If you don't like a law take pen in hand, write a rebuttle, get support, change the law. Don't drag God into what is Mans' issue. You all have one bible, they all say the same thing, so why is there so many different religions? Because you all do not see the same picture but the out come is the same, go to heaven or go to Hell.
"Homosexuality is no more a sin to a Christian than eating shellfish"
Yah rad, you said that already and its a cute little phrase. It really has no basis in reality however.
Old Testament dietary/cleanliness laws were practical, stay alive rules for the nation of Israel. The New Testament (not written specifically to the Jewish nation) expressly teaches that homosexuality is sin (No Jesus did not "specifically" address it). You are entitled to your own beliefs, as are we all, but please don't pretend that you have any idea what the Bible's teaching's are on the subject, its embarassing.
One of Ms. Kennedy's arguments is that Health Care may no longer be available for Domestic Partners ( Domestic Partners being defined as Same-Sex Partners). Currently the State allows State Employees to put their Same-Sex (Domestic Partners) Partners on their State/County/City Employee Health Insurance while discriminating against Opposite Sex Partners who are prohibited from offering the same Health Coverage. It has everything to do with forcing tax payers to accept Gay Relationships. I'm not against Gay Partnerships, but I am not supportive of my tax dollars giving Health Insurance to those Couples and not allow the same option to Male/Female Partners.
dear christians:
dont you think jesus would have a longer line of christians going to hell then gays?
just a little thumbs up...
lets see: Porn
Divorce
Money/wealth
Disrespect to parents
also if u said jesus christ in the wrong tone, well, hell...
meanwhile, fix urself for YOUR religion. no one wants to see you unzip your pants, you do that INDOOR, in your own house.
also liberal are more christian then the right...
all you right do it cower in fear for the communist and the muslims, you bash people like the gays and the adopted and defund any organization that is agaisnt your religion. you like to see medicare over thrown and not pay taxes to protect the poor....
you guys really think that juse because the right wing claim they are doing thier stuff becuz of GOD?!
ask yourself an honest question, if your god was here right now, if he/she a liberal or a right wing?
Tod, I spent 12 years in Catholic school, studying religion on a daily basis. I think I know a thing or two about it. The only writer in the New Testament that mentioned homosexuality as a sin was Paul, who never knew Jesus. Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus, not on the teachings of Paul.
@Evenstar13
"A true Cristian does not hate anyone, they hate the sin but not the person."
This is terrible. In the context of this discussion, it's equivalent to saying "I love you, but I'd love you even more if you weren't gay. That part of you is abhorrent to me." For those that identify as gay, it is simply who they are - whether the orientation is inherent, learned, or chosen doesn't matter. You can't separate the person from the way they live their life as they are one and the same.
rad,
Your ignorance is showing. Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament, and is responsible for most NewTestment doctrine (has been for 2000 years). You may chose to not to like him or you may chose to throw out his every word, but that's not Christianity, its radianity.
P.S. studying "religion" in Catholic school has very little to do with having a working knowledge of Biblical Christianity. I do not deny or even condemn what you believe,, but when you make bold false statements concerning what the Bible/Christianity teaches I'm gonna call you on it.
Equal protection under the law for all Americans, perhapse.
Neither are many rights, like interracial marriage. So get over it.
Lots. In fact huge amounts. The vast majority of the rights you enjoy are not enumerated in the constitution but are rather defined by the courts based upon constitutional principles.
What?!?
Sure, like stoning slaves and killing infidels.
Actually, this is innacurate. Atheists are disproportionaly underrepresented in jail. So in our society I guess we are the more moral population.
Yet convicted felons can get married. Logical fail.
My marriage means quite a bit to me. Not in any religious way, but it has deep symbolic meaning.
Comment # 2 restored for clarity.
I am so sick of this bull-s*** excuse.
Show me one passage where Jesus says: "I hate..." and explains a sin. In fact, show me ANY passage where Jesus describes hate in his heart... towards ANYTHING.
You can't, because it does not exist. So let's just be honest... people like you are just using this play on words to justify the hatred in your own heart. You are using it as a loophole, to support your hatred while still falling within the technical "love" terms.
Jesus also told you not to judge, yet here you are... judging their lifestyle as a sin, and desperately trying to justify it by saying you "hate the sin."
How do you think Jesus feels about YOU allowing hatred to fill your heart, even for a sin? What do you think he would say? Do you honestly think your little semantics game... your play on words... your twist on hatred... will pass with him? You think that excuse will work? You think he won't see right through your loophole?
Ya, good luck with that. If people like me can see right through your little game, then you are in real trouble when your God starts questioning you.
indie: "Show me one passage where Jesus says: "I hate..." and explains a sin. In fact, show me ANY passage where Jesus describes hate in his heart... towards ANYTHING"
Revelation 2:6 for starters ..."which I also hate".
Pretty much every time he spoke with the Pharisees>
The Bible also teaches (Jesus words) that Jesus and the Father are one.
The are 100's of verses in the Old Testament where God declares, without appology, those things/people/behaviors He hates.
My point; there is not a single book (that I know of) that more people like to pretend they know what it says, yet clearly do not. The above thread is so full of silly, cute little comments declaring "The Bible says this"; 90% are pure malarchy, yours included.
to Lee2124113 Just thought I'd send you some examples
There are examples of parthenogenesis in the hammerhead shark[14] and the blacktip shark.[15] In both cases, the sharks had reached sexual maturity in captivity in the absence of males, and in both cases the offspring were shown to be genetically identical to the mothers.
Reptiles use the ZW sex-determination system, which produces either males (with ZZ sex chromosomes) or females (with ZW or WW sex chromosomes). Until 2010, it was thought that the ZW chromosome system used by reptiles was incapable of producing viable WW offspring, but a (ZW) female boa constrictor was discovered to have produced viable female offspring with WW chromosomes.[16] The female boa could have chosen any number of male partners (and had successfully in the past) but on these occasions she reproduced asexually, creating 22 female babies with WW sex-chromosomes.
Polyembryony is a widespread form of asexual reproduction in animals, whereby the fertilized egg or a later stage of embryonic development splits to form genetically identical clones. Within animals, this phenomenon has been best studied in the parasitic Hymenoptera. In the 9-banded armadillos, this process is obligatory and usually gives rise to genetically identical quadruplets. In other mammals, monozygotic twinning has no apparent genetic basis, though its occurrence is common. There are at least 10 million identical human twins and triplets in the world today.
"The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. The very thought of using a constitution to actually restrict rights of others is abhorrent."
is that some kind of sick joke?
the original draft of the constitution stipulated that slaves count as "three fifths" of a man
the founding fathers would've loved this idea. they would've laughed and high fived one another
the founding fathers were wealthy, elitist, bigoted aristocrats in powdered wigs. the only time they ever talked about "liberty" and "freedom" was when even wealthier aristocrats back in the empire tried to make them pay their taxes
Interesting spin death, but based on your name who can take you seriously anyway.
P.S. The founding fathers, every single colonist (slave or free), every citizen in the world at that time would have laughed out loud at the idea of gay marriage, let alone the legality of it. Come to think of it, 90% of today's world would think the same. I will agree with one aspect of your name, the undoing of the basic family unit (father mother child) will be our undoing/death. Unfortunately the gay marriage movement is not the main/only culprit there.
Religious people scare me. Spiritual people inspire me. Some of the so called Christians on this post scare the crap out of me.
There are plenty of occasions when Jesus showed, not what is called hate, but "righteous indignation" When businessmen were using the temple to make money for themselves, Jesus went in, overturned their tables, and scolded them "Stop making the house of my father a cave of robbers" Jesus was not hateful, but when he had to, he got bold and angry, to defend the name of his father.
Christianity-the religion of peace
HAH!
my dog tuaght me for about morals then them bunch of swines
would like it if one day people actually read the bible...no way you can read it and not be in absolute disgust...
rape incest kidnapping murder sex slave genocide, destructions of cities, stoning, downgrading woman and a lot more...ALL MORALS LOLS!!
SO HOW?!
Right wing: Small government, big on religious government, ranging from same sex marriage, woman contreception, and abortion.
no, they dont control your taxes( /sacrasm), they just like to slip the bible out and shove it in ur mouth, then sneak into your bedroom to make sure you are not a communist, gay, or poor....
yet they seem sure to house nazis and the KKK in the southern states..
so did u guys enjoy the KKK museums?
Tod wrote: "Do you guys actually believe the founding fathers are "rolling over in their graves" because men want to marry men, and women want to marry women? I get what you are saying, but lets not pretend that any of our founding fathers would have supported gay marriage. The idea would have been laughable and you know it."
Tod, While their approval of homosexuality might be in question, it is clear that they did not want the government defining family or who they slept with. Franklin certainly would not have wanted government interference in his family life. And Jefferson was not the only slave-owner to use his slaves for pleasure and procreation. Remember Andrew Jackson's questionable "marriage"? And frontier couples, like Lincoln's parents often lived together for several months to several years before an itinerant preacher could say the magic words to them, and their children.
And perhaps we also should remember the icons of moral rectitude, the Puritans of A Scarlet Letter" fame, outlawed celebrating Christmas as hedonist, but had no trouble slaughtering native peoples to seize their land.
@Tod
"The founding fathers, every single colonist (slave or free), every citizen in the world at that time would have laughed out loud at the idea of gay marriage, let alone the legality of it. Come to think of it, 90% of today's world would think the same. I will agree with one aspect of your name, the undoing of the basic family unit (father mother child) will be our undoing/death. Unfortunately the gay marriage movement is not the main/only culprit there."
Yes, and the founding fathers owned slaves, had mistresses frequent them, would not have approved of racial intermingling (unless they were there to "service" them), would pull guns on each other for insults commonly encountered on this newsvine, and would be completely overwhelmed with the complexities of modern society - if they were able to travel in time to today. It was a different time. We live in the 21st century. While some ideas that our founding fathers had served and continue to serve us well, they certainly had their shortcomings. Our founding fathers rarely agreed on anything anyways - kind of like our politicians of today.
I'm sure that 90% of people that follow dogmatic, monotheistic faith systems "laugh" (or rather throw fits of rage) at the idea of legalizing gay marriage - but somehow I doubt that's an accurate number for the world TODAY.
But by all means, continue to believe that gays getting married somehow threatens the institution, your family, and your way of life. We know you will anyways, so no further discussion is warranted. I wish you well, but times are changing and the world with it. Change might be gradual and fraught with inefficiencies, but eventually your rather rigid worldviews will become antiquated.
As a biologist I look at this situation in a different way. A recent study has found that the gene(s) that possibly control homosexuality in men may also increase female reproductive ability. Thus, any losses in population made by non-reproducing males is made up for by particularly fertile females. So, those people who say it is against nature are, quite frankly, wrong - it may just be a biological way to get more offspring through the female line. This could also explain why homosexuality hasn't been bred out of the gene pool already. Of course, if there is an actual "gay gene(s)" then removing the stigma of being gay would actually reduce the number of gay individuals due to less of those individuals trying to pretend to be straight and having children. Ironic, isn't it?
I think I can safely end this conversation once and for all. You, like... 12 apostles, right? 12 Apostles, Evangelists, whatever. You have several other works mashed into it. You have the Old Testament (which for some reason you people outright ignore. What, was Jewish word not good enough for you?), you have several hundreds of translators, and even a staff of people that DECIDED who canonically GOT into the Bible and who didn't.
Yet, somehow, in SOME WAY, someone didn't edit the word to suit their beliefs, or change the word to better suit them (COUGHKINGJAMESCOUGH), and even then, EVEN THEN, all translations are ABSOLUTELY perfect. No. I'm sorry, it does NOT work that way. Every language has intricacies, and subtle tone, and ways of writing words and changing the meanings, kind of like Sea and See, or Herd and Heard. Yet you're telling me that they have an ABSOLUTE, UNBIASED, COMPLETELY WRITTEN BY GOD copy of the Bible out there, and you take all the lessons of your life from it.
... Go ahead. repeat it out loud, enough times for you to confront the fact that SOMEWHERE along the way, one of the Apostles (COUGHPAULCOUGH) probably saw two dudes making out in an alleyway behind the tavern and was like "Ew, dude, no. God CERTAINLY must hate this, BECAUSE I HATE IT! *Scribblescribblescribble!*" I'm sick of fighting with you ignorant zealots, when you and your ilk have 100 different ways of reading, interpretting, and even inacting THE WORD.
Have you ever, EVER considered that it's not GOD'S word, but simply your own BITTER HATRED for homosexuals, and you have to justify your own bigotry and hatred by using the Bible? Have you EVER considered that maybe you're just a terrible person, and that you use God as some almighty reason to make yourself feel better for your own prejudices? No, no you don't, because you tell yourself it's all in the Bible. Or at least in one of them. Whichever suits your own personal beliefs, allowing you to feel righteous in your condemnations.
Go ahead. Say whatever you say that lets you sleep better at night. I'm sick of dealing with you people.
Eng Esq: Exactly, which is why granting civil unions to gays will never be enough, even if they get all the tax rights, etc. to go with it. They want acceptance, which is something they will never get.
Thank you for finally proving every christians point on this site. No matter what we say, you will always refer to us as bigoted, unenlightened, etc. until we cave into your pressure. It doesn't really have anything to do with what you as a non-christian believe or even of what christians believe, you just want the approval of everyone else. Homosexual marriage will never have Christians' approval. It goes against the very nature of Christ.
Speak for yourself. They already have acceptance from many, many people. But no, they don't care about your acceptance. They want equal rights. There is a significant difference. Why IS that so hard for so many of you to understand?
Again, speak for yourself. There are some Christians who actually understand the meaning of "Love thy neightbor as thyself" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged."
Correct, it doesn't matter if others believe you to be bigoted, unenlightened, etc. The opinions of others do not define us, our behavior defines us. Your actions define you without need for name-calling from anyone else.
If the shoe fits...
I could care less what you think of my secular marriage. Likewise, I doubt any gay person gives a crap what you think about their marriages.
I care about equality, and separate is not equal. Relegating me to a civil union because I'm not delusional in believing in a sky-fairy is a clear violation of my rights.
Its kind of funny that certain people would justify homosexuality by the observation of 1500 animal species.
1. we are human beings and not some four legged animals running around in the woods
2. we as human beings are aware of ourselves as a species, animals are not.
3. we as human being have complex language and higher reasoning where as the animal kingdom does not. I have not seen a dog or a cat develop a cure to any disease.
4. To even compare human beings to any other species on this planet is just an excuse to justify abhorrent behavior.
It's kind of funny that certain people would attempt to refute intelligent observations with a post which is almost entirely devoid of facts, and which is relevant to nothing.
1. We are human beings, a bunch of two-legged animals running around in the woods, and elsewhere. (You do get a point for ONE fact here: You have correctly identified that we are not four-legged animals. Nice work!)
2. Great apes, dolphins, and elephants are known to be self-aware. Even dogs are thought to recognize the abstract concept of "dog."
3. Chimpanzees have demonstrated higher reasoning. They have been known to hide rocks and their own intentions in preparation for an ambush. They have been known to act nonchalant, waiting to catch their intended victim unawares, and then spring into action, hurling themselves and various projectiles at their victim. This indicates that they can imagine a future event, plan for it, and practice deception to achieve their goal. This is higher reasoning. Gorillas can independently assemble words, using sign language, to articulate sophisticated concepts such as insults. Dolphins' whistles and clicks are thought to be possibly a language. (BTW, I haven't seen YOU cure any diseases either, does this mean that you don't have higher reasoning ability?)
4. Number 4 is just flat-out an opinion. A silly one, in my opinion. And, also in my opinion, when you compare human beings to most species on the planet, the animals are not the ones who suffer in the comparison.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to think yourself superior to The Animals and The Gays, knock yourself out. (As long as you're not trying to deny them, in the case of gay marriage, equal treatment under the law, which is their right!)
geegeeburr
Great apes, dolphins, and elephants are known to be self-aware. Even dogs are thought to recognize the abstract concept of "dog."
I guess thats why when you put a mirror in front of a dog, he will attack his own image without realizing that it is his own.... Nice abstract. That also goes along with Apes and chimps.
They have been known to hide rocks and their own intentions in preparation for an ambush.
Yeah, you cant hide animal Instinct.
Gorillas can independently assemble words, using sign language, to articulate sophisticated concepts such as insults.
Only if taught at a young age but unfortunately still have the intelligence of a 3 year old. but hey anyone can teach you to put up your middle finger and stick it in your arse.
Number 4 is just flat-out an opinion. A silly one, in my opinion
That is why we are the dominant species of this planet. Of course that is always subject to change the way were going.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to think yourself superior to The Animals and The Gays, knock yourself out.
Hey whatever you want to do behind closed doors is your own business not mine. Personally, I don't give a flying F----k. I have my opinions and you have yours and I dont give in to pressure unlike a select few that only see dollar signs in the end.
Jealousy is such an unbecoming emotion.
What if the dog is dyslexic?
Curious, can a dog have a god complex?
Ask geegeeburr. He seems to think so. He probably thinks that a dogs bark is also an involuntary spasm. But don't tell him that it isn't! He might just get a little upset!
@thenight Really, dude? That doesn't even make sense.
@Bassai- Wait, I remember this one! If he's also insomniac and agnostic, then he stays up all night wondering if there really is a ..... hmmmmmm.
Just Voted AGAINST AMMENDMENT 1 in NC I am an unmarried female but have a child with the man who is the father of my child as well and we have been together since 2004 I cannot marry him for fear my 15 yr.old. autistic son (who is not his biological child)would loose his health insurance and SSI benifit if I do, but if we lived in CA we would already be considered common law husband and wife, believe me it is a battle in this state. There is still a law from 100 years ago that in any county in NC on Sunday's you can take your wife to the court house and publicly beat her for disobeying you, now how MESSED UP IS THAT????Please think of others and NOT YOUR SELVES or opinions when U vote....it is the wrong law to pass for many reasons other then gay marriage....but they have a right to wed in my opinion too...
Same here - just voted against it in NC - although to no avail I'm sure. It's real simple:
1) There are already laws making it illegal.
2) Marriage is a secular institution - so religion should have nothing to do with it ( you don't get Christian married or Muslim married - you just get married as recognized by the state). If the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist churches/temples don't want to recognize THEIR sacrament of marriage between homosexuals, that's their business - but the separation of church and state should still stand.
3) As Ruken said - it is "abhorrent" to restrict rights of individuals through a consititutional amendment. Amendments should only expand rights.
4) In less than 20 years, this will force the issue in front of the Supreme Court - just like Loving v. Virginia and the interracial marriage laws - and the Supreme Court will rule in favor of homosexual marriage rights. In the near future, laws against homosexuals getting married will be as foreign/archaic/outdated as interracial marriage laws.
Not everybody in the south is stupid. Lots of them - but not all of us.
In 20 years, most of the teaparty will be dead of old age, and this will be a non-issue.
Young people don't care if gay people get married.
If it gets passed, then maybe every couple that is not a man and women who are married, will refuse to stop in NC on the way south or north. Dollars have their own voice, and if the beacj hotels and other places in NC start to see a dramatic drop in revenue, than they can all apply to the many churches, to have their god send them money.
If you choose to worship at the alter of money and sexual perversion, that freedom you are granted
Sexual perversion, like the priests raping altar boys?
Hmm, Could not find anything on MSNBC about this....wonder why.
Tax payers getting screwed once more...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/08/it-all-your-money-us-postal-service-bailout/
...and the altar of money? What, like Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson and all the other ridiculous megachurch/network televangelists?
The Democratic Party ought move their national convention this year out of North Carolina. Multinational corporations considering moving to NC ought reconsider, as basic human and civil rights, but they do understand the color of money.
...and the altar of money? What, like Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson and all the other ridiculous megachurch/network televangelists?"
.....not fair! Gulf Streams are expensive.
Dear Bob Bobarino,
Congratulations! You win! The daily reminder there are sensible folks in all areas of our country ;-) Let's hope common sense prevails.
Another NC native here who voted AGAINST Amendment One this morning. Regardless your views on what marriage is or isn't, this is BAD LAW, period. And you never know how this might adversely affect a dear friend or family relative in the future 'cause hey, maybe you don't know all you think you do about their personal situations.
Just like the 1860's, I fear NC will once again join a confederacy of idiots, even tho' we were the last to do so.
Keep in mind that the R-party took a lot of seats in the NC General Assembly during the last election. Otherwise, this thing might not have been on the ballot today. Please don't judge us as being all of one mindset in the Ol' North State. That's SOUTH Carolina you're thinking about.
This here is your white hetero married male, boomer-aged daddy with a professional degree, living in a rural NC community, and voting today in the fellowship hall of the local Baptist church.
No, in this case they don't. Living in Charlotte and hearing the conservative response to this suggestion over the past couple of weeks, I can tell you without a doubt that all it would do is cause the conservatives that support amendment one to celebrate what they'd see as a victory (The "'git Obama offa our land!" crowd). Thy already want the convention moved, and if this caused that to happen, no amount of financial loss (even if it directly impacted them) would stop their celebration
Sam, it this has to do with the teaparty and conseratives, please explain how it is not legal in California too, one of the most liberal states in the nation.
umgawa, first of all, the post office has nothing to do with this article. Second, the Constitution gives Congress the power to run the postal service, which means it has the power to fund it (with taxpayer money).
raddave
why bother explaining it to him if he wasn't smart enough to have known that already he is probably too stupid to be a functioning member of society anyways i mean seriously im 17 and i knew that when i was like 10 years old. just sad when people get pissed off about something they are too stupid to realize is not wrong and has been apart of governement for years.
Sigh. Posted on the wrong place...
Marriage is not a secular institution and God created male and female, not "other" listed on some questions concerning sexuality registering some products or online information. At least NC is trying to protect the sanctity of marriage and the gay people will never get it.
Go to one of the 28 Wal-Marts in NC if you want to see the religious sanctity of marital bliss....These are the GOP funnel-cake eaters who don't like government intrusion except for the stamp entitlements and free dental care.
You are missing the point. It is allready illegal. What you are doing is discriminating against
other human beings rights. Just like back in the old days again. No thought
about others. Jesus would be ashamed of you harboring ill will and hatred toward
another person because of sexual preference.
Of course it is, legally! What marriages are legally recognized is a secular matter.
We are not talking about a sacramental marriage that takes place in a church. How about a marriage that takes place in a drive through lane in Las Vegas performed by Elvis! That is a legal marriage-not recognized by most churches.
People are who were supposed to be protected by the constitution-not institutions.
Even if you do not support legalizing gay marriage, approving an ammendment to the constitution (state or national) that limits rights instead of provides them is wrong. The Constitution is designed to give rights, not limit them.
Not sure what transgender issues have to do with it...
Marriage should be between one Christian Man, and one Christian Woman. Let's go whole hog on this one and prevent other undesirables from making families!
LOL Silly people. Don't you realize that if Gay Marriage is legal, you don't have to get one?! It's none of your business! All you are doing is making the government responsible for deciding who you can marry!
Wow, slow clap... Every single sentence you just typed is 100% pure BULL.
Marriage is, in fact, a secular institution--it predates the Bible/Christianity, and last I checked--even atheists can get married. Also, ever heard of hemaphrodites? They were born that way--thereby, according to your beliefs, God created them. Have you EVER read a book? And as for the "sanctity" of marriage--HA. Heterosexuals have been destroying the 'sanctity' of marriage from day 1, bucko. For example, please read: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11598537-women-battle-over-who-gets-recognized-as-dead-soldiers-wife?lite
You know I am tired of both sides of this issue. If two gay individuals want to get married fine. If some people don't care for it to bad. What I am upset with is the push to teach the gay life style in schools as normal. I don't feel it should be taught at all in school any more than teaching that the gay life style is abnormal. These issues are the job of the parents to teach to their children, and I am tired of my tax dollars being wasted to sway our children in either direction.
I have supported legal recognition of same sex couples for a long time, even if I prefer the term "civil union" (since 50% of marriages end in divorce, many heterosexual marriages should be labeled this, too) to marriage. As far as our amendment to "protect marriage" I voted against it, because I consider it an attack on individual liberty, something I will never support, regardless of which party supports it.
If marriage deserves "protection" from anyone, it's heterosexuals with garbage like Kim K's 72 day fraud of a marriage, clowns like (D) Al Gore giving lectures on the saving the environment while nailing his fellow liberal's wife and my fellow Carolinian (R) Mark Sanford (who is , incredibly, even more of a hypocrite than Big Al, since he was one of the empty suits spouting garbage about "protecting" traditional marriage during his political career) who ABANDONED his marriage as well as his post as S.C. Governor to go hike the Argentinian Trail with his "soul mate" !!
@Double D from Ga
"What I am upset with is the push to teach the gay life style in schools as normal."
All through my school years, I never once encountered a teacher, administrator, or staff member attempting to "teach" the gay life style to students. Now, being that you're from Georgia, I can't believe for one second that you have encountered it either. I have family down there, I know. That area of the country is least accepting of any kind of lifestyle that deviates from the modern conservative Christian one.
@CalvinOR
I don't know what part of Georgia you speak about but I only know what my daughter, who is a teacher and has been for 12 years now, is required to teach per the board of education directives.
@Double D from Ga
Ok, what exactly is she required to teach? You're telling me that she is required to instruct students to favor the gay life style (and she hasn't been beaten or killed yet)?
I think that it's more likely that schools are trying to cut down on the bullying, particularly of gay or perceived gay students. To do this, schools must not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. Policies are put into place to deal with this - but in no way does this effect the attitudes and opinions of the population, particularly in the South. Those negative attitudes are alive and well and no policy will change that. It only ensures that there are consequences (hopefully) for staff and students that want to act out violently against those who identify as gay or display behavior that is not in line with expected gender roles.
@ Double D from GA: then please tell us what exactly it is that she is required to teach? Please be honest.
Dont the right wing hate the communist becuase they violate human rights..?
the hypocrisy is staggering..
No, but the left wingers hate the republicans and the christians because of their freedom of speech. Isn't that hypocrisy as well? Don't the liberals always refer to the bill of rights?
Unhappy-1583758
You have managed a conundrum.
You claim (falsely) that left wingers hate Republicans and Christians because of their freedom of speech.
Yet, you nail it when you state in the third sentence that liberals refer to the Bill of Rights.
Doesn't the third sentence render the first sentence null and void?
Either the left wing is opposed to freedom of speech or they support it.
Perhaps you misunderstand. There is a difference between freedom of speech and lies.
If I were to say, for example only, that President Bush is responsible for 9/11, would you stand 100% behind me and say I had every right in the world to say it or would you say I am lying?
Should you choose the first, you would side with my assessment and we would be in agreement. Choosing the latter, you would oppose my assessment and verbally accuse me of falsehood.
Liberals agree that one has the right to their freedom of speech. But they also believe they have the right to their freedom of speech and call it lies when they deem it to be so.
Perhaps liberals hate republicans for being the self-proclaimed bearer of Freedom yet do everything in their power to suppress the freedom of any minority.
Perhaps liberals hate Christians for their arrogance in believing that their religion is the only one sanctioned by God, all others must go to Hell.
Hate is a strong emotion. Perhaps disdain is a better fit. We all have our beliefs and when others attempt to suppress those beliefs and force their own beliefs on them, it leaves a bitter taste.
Hypocrisy can be found everywhere. One worships God, and that's o.k. One worships Allah but that is bad. One worships Jehovah and another worships Muhammad. To each, the other is the hypocrit.
The marriage corruption movement has seen its high water mark; now it is time for them to meet their Waterloo.
"If we hoped to repair what is wrong in the world, we had best start with the rectification of the names." Confucius
"The corruption of society begins with a failure to call
things by their proper names"
Funny Randy, you completely miss the meaning of those quotes.
The marriage corruption movement is completely dependent upon "no it isn't" and "so what" responses in defense of their demands for special consideration for their proclivity.
My "morals" are none of your business. If you stick your nose in my business, you'll get it bloodied.
It's none of your business if I drink, smoke, gamble, have gay sex, or anything else that doesn't harm anyone.
You're getting funnier, Randy; this is the first time I've ever heard love described as a "proclivity"! Equality is not a "special consideration", but something that our Constitution guarantees, in this case, the 14th amendment. The dis ingeniousness that Confucius refers to is at the heart of those who oppose equality who attempt to conceal their motives behind such phrases as "defining marriage", "defending marriage", and "marriage corruption", when in fact the definition is well know, nothing needs defending, and it is not possible to corrupt anothers marriage.
Not possible to corrupt individual marriages without the consent of those involved. However it is possible to change the character of the institution. This is what you're after anyway right? If it's possible to change a thing then the possibility exists that the change will bring corruption. The conservative view is that gay marriage will be a corruption. The liberal view is that it will not. What is at stake is the moral direction of the country. The choice is between the wisdom of the ages versus the desires of the flesh.
I don't know what "desires of the flesh" have to do with anything, but the "wisdom of the ages" will show that gay marriage was a fact centuries ago.
Yes, just like we've done dozens of times throughout history. Poligamy was the most common sort of marriage in the times that the bible was written. We've corrupted the meaning by restricting it to two people.
As such, I'm all for "corrupting" something that is not right.
"What is at stake is the moral direction of the country"
You don't get to decide that. Your religion is just one of many. My religion thinks gay marriage is fine. What about my religious freedom?
The character? As defined by who?
That's the problem, one side thinks they own the definition of marriage and that they don't have to share the institution with anyone else. It's simply NOT THEIR PREROGATIVE to determine who corrupts, does not corrupt, craps on, mocks, tolerates, sniffs, buys, sells, tricks, paints, dances with, or WHATEVER - the institution of marriage. They simply don't own it.
They think it will corrupt its "character" - TOO F'NG BAD, IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU..... it belongs to EVERYONE.
When will they figure that out?
Randy, Bill:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/08/11598537-women-battle-over-who-gets-recognized-as-dead-soldiers-wife?threadId=3413576&commentId=65645854#c65645854
Newsflash. Heterosexuals have been "corrupting" marriage for as long as it has been around (pre-Biblical times, by the way). "One man, one woman"? Read the news article.
I'm not a big fan of Confucious. He never regarded women very highly.
These folks are simple theocrats, is all.
to all the people out there that say all this @!$%# like "gay marriage is an abomination" or "gays will corrupt the institution of marriage" yada yada yada. That is the same @!$%# they said about interracial marriage and before that it was people of different religion and there was also marrying people of a different social class as well. Also if marriage is supposed to be so damned holy why is it that over the course of its existence marriage has been used for things like "money, power, and social standing" hmmmm? so i mean if straight people can use marriage for corrupt bull@!$%# reasons why the hell can't gays have a marriage based on love? really really pisses me off when no one can give me an answer.
Actually there really are no arguments on this site for gay marriage. The only defense the liberals have is to bash Christians. Gay marriage is not covered under the Constitution or any of its amendments. Gays are still able to hold property, have freedom of speech, etc. Since marriage is based on morality(all religions have morality in them, except atheists who seem to be the most immoral) it therefore makes no sense to grant it to the immoral.
If atheist wants to agree with their homosexual counterparts, let them get a civil union too. Afterall to them, marriage is nothing, right?
If marriage is for procreate purpose only, then what about infertile people? I bet they need to make a new law regard infertile people can't marry.
That argument is getting old too. It's as stupid as saying, why should gay people adopt children? Afterall, it's not like they can't produce any of their own if they met the right person.
appluad to anyone who are different, you good christians are what morality is all about
Morality is when you are doing whats right regardless of what you are told
religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right
may the day come when the old bigots die, and then go to "heaven" so they can have a 24/7 revamp only for whining...
fun fact, marriage wasnt started by christianity...
athiests are allowed to marry, muslim marry under a different god, but hey, if this get pasted, ANOTHER THING WILL BE AN ISSUE
if this get passed, i urge NC to form a bill agaisnt divorce...cuz btw, its not right in your book as well. breakin the bond of god is far worst then forming one
(the state isnt a church, so why does a state need to recognize what the church does? a marriage is only a ceremony....)
Unhappy.
Gays get to pay the same bills, taxes and do the same things as straight people EXCEPT be allowed to marry who they love and enjoy the same benefits of said marriage... Such as being able to provide insurance to their spouse, having legal rights concerning medical, financial, and family. Oh yes, gays have so many rights... Do you think gay people should be discriminated against? How does is hurt to treat people the same? And by the way civil unions are in no way comparable to marriage...
@Unhappy
wonder why the kids are up for adoption to begin with? the arguement is gettin old. you dont get people get an abortion. gay people who adopt kids pick up the mess you christians make. not like the church is an orphanage either, becuase if they were, guess who is gonna be touching the alter boy....
you are TRUELY UNHAPPY
ban divorce 1st, because its the violation to themselves (christians), before digging into other peoples business. i understand why you wont do it, cuz your religion is only used to convert people and enslave them to your ideal....
typical
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Never in my life have I witnessed such appalling ignorance. Please, since when has marriage been based on MORALITY?! I'd love to hear that one explained. Marriage historically has been a contract, most widely used for power and money. Women rarely, if ever got a choice of who they married, and if they decided to stray were more often punished or worse--killed, while men frequently had the right to stray--or, at least, the law looked the other way (all this sanctioned by the CHURCH). Marriage based on morality is a very, very, very new concept.
Neither is "straight marriage", so what's your point genius?
That's because the only "offense" that conservatives have related to the gay marriage argument is a religious-based argument, that holds NO PLACE in our government. You yourself just said the issue here is "morality", thereby the entire debate revolves around religion, knucklehead. Keep your bible out of our laws and keep your nose out of our bedrooms. Weren't you people supposed to be for smaller government? Oh, that's right, I just used a political defense! What's your political rebuttal?
@name1, personnally I'm not gay nor am I religious. I guess there is a God, I'm not an athiaste. I think you are going to have to be patiant until some of these old hard core Southern Baptist die off and than things will change slowly for gay rights. It really bothers me that I spent over 20 years of my life protecting and defending the rights of the people of the great country only to see them missuse what I and my buddies had fought for, (some even dying).
except atheists who seem to be the most immoral)
You have got to be kidding me right? Atheist are highly
moral people you moron!
In the Christian mind, morality is directly related to the fear that the big man in the sky will do horrible things to you if you are a bad person. And somehow this works out to them telling other people who they can love and who they cannot...
PuNkR...(are you kidding?) That statement is as moronic as the "most immoral" statement.
Atheists are neither more or less moral than the norm. I do not think morels have anything to do with atheism, it's more to do with the soul.
Um....Sam, Shuklack- That's your opinion, and you are entitled to them, HOWEVER, the definition of Marriage IS going up for a vote, WILL be voted on, and ALL of us will have to live with it. With that being said, I am SOOOO glad you are a minority fringe group (the numbers don't lie), and will always be one as long as us heteros are producing OUR futrue generations (notwithstanding your point the gay people are born of straight couples), the MAJORITY of society will always STRAIGHT and THANK GOD (whatever you may call Him/Her/It or lack thereof).
Well, you're certainly in the majority of unintelligent people aren't you? Fortunately in this country, the beliefs of a majority do not trump the rights of a minority. Read up on democracy (and work on your spelling). By the way, the "numbers" are split nearly 50-50 in support/opposition of gay marriage, so I hardly think the "minority" is a "fringe group". How about YOU believe what you want to believe, and stop worrying so much about other people's sexual escapades. Maybe just focus on getting yourself laid.
53% of the US supports gay marriage. Most of us are straight. The numbers are directly proportional to the age of the polled group.
The majority in support of gay marriage has consistently been less motivated to vote. As such, even though we are a majority in many places (like CA), the more zealous anti-gay rights folk get out and vote in larger numbers.
However, as the older generations die off, and we become more and more pro-gay rights, even this enthusiasm gap won't be enough, and gay marriage will become increasingly prevalent.
Then we will shake our heads in saddnes that it took so damn long.
Agree with everything except one thing. The thing people are saying about "Christianity is about love" they're both defending the actual written beliefs (which are not followed) and reminding other "Christians" that they aren't following them. Christianity as written is about love. And in the spirit of love, we should not have organizations like the paradoxically named National Organization for Marriage which restricts it, and threatens taking adopted daughters away from their parents.
You'll notice my stance is sorta mixed. I'm in favor of temple marriages, but in favor of allowing gay marriage (except in forcing priests to perform marriages by law they don't want). Why? It's because I grew up in the church, and believe it has potential to do good works in the world. But I also grew up as a crossdresser. As long as the church preaches love but supports such laws, I'll be in fear of my life every time I enter a store to shop.
Hello Preceded,
Thank you for pointing out my grammatical errors; I enjoy putting your mind to work when it tries HARDER than usual to think. As to your response, WHY do you think they are making this a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment? (Hint- the answer is in the article), but I'll spell it out for you anyways: once it's part of the constitution, there are only 2 (two) ways it can ever be undone- 1) a vote by the people (Where the majority DO rule), or 2) if its scrapped by the SCOTUS (which at this point would be unlikely as, again, the MAJORITY of states support it). Democracy is the PROBLEM with this country. We conservatives are reeling in that run away train!
Christians... have you ever wondered about what will happen when you're not the dominant religion? The world remembers the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, The Dark Ages are especially popular, but the point is... we know what you've done, what your true face is, that your religion isn't about "love". You sit there singing about Hellfire and Brimstone upon anyone with a different life or religion than yours, you create stories of demons and burning pits of fire to scar your children for life so they'll join your cult...
_______________________________________________________
Sadly, you are correct that this will happen. Ironically, the Bible tells us so. ;)
... And yet, you don't have the foresight to realize something. Have you seen what Muslims are currently going through for their own religious ideals? Let's have a reality check: They are not trusted, some even outright hated, all for the doctrine they abide by and actions they've taken. Now, flip that around to Christians here in about 30, maybe 40 years. Everyone you've hurt, all the progress you've stopped, all the shame you've wrought will be centerfold. We will remember all of your actions when you're the minority.
You can sit there claiming the "moral highground", when in fact you're hateful, spiteful, vengeful bigots that sing of the Apocalypse just so you can make up for your shortcomings as a decent human being. But we will remember, the images you cast today will ring into the future, and the second you lose the majority, when people finally let go of your "Holy Word"... how do you think people will view you, much less react to you?
Look at those that argue against you in this forum. They are the future. I hope you'll enjoy greatly the hatred and bigotry towards YOU that you will be facing, and are already facing. It's happening right now, even as we speak. You desperately cling to power fading, and it's only a matter of time before your religion goes the way of the ancient Pantheons, and the bile you spew, the venom bubbling from your mouth, will only drive more and more away as you flail about, kicking and screaming like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Honestly, I can't wait for you and your entire religion to fall flat on your face, sinking face first into the excrement that's oozing out of your mouth for so many years.
I just voted AGAINST amendment one. I am a straight female & am honestly disgusted by the amount of hate I see from those wanting to pass this law. In the debate on TV the representative couldn't quote the Bible because no where in Scripture did it say anything against homosexuality (it does about divorce though). If they were truly Christian they would realize Jesus said to love. It is not their place to judge someone--that's left up to God.
The word "Homosexual" was coined in 1889 Germany in reference to a construct where an individual spends their entire life committed to having sex with same gendered companions. The "homosexual" religion is a 21st century construct designed to lend an appearance of acceptability to sexual depravity condemned in the Abrahamic faiths.
"homosexual religion" is something you just made up, Randy.
Secularism is a religion; it is a Godless religion, but it is a religion non-the-less.
The "Abrahamic faiths" are about as relevant to the Constitution of the United States as dancing around a totem pole.
Can I get a tax exemption for my secular "religion"? I want a private jet like the TV preachers have.
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
oxford dictionary
Bellatrist21, you could not be more wrong. The Bible is very clear when it says it is wrong for a man to lay down with another man. In 1rst corintians 6:9 it is more than clear that homosexual offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Randy and I are going to have fun in hell.
He's american, therefore he is RICH by the worlds definition.
Therefore, according to GOD - he aint ever entering heaven, PERIOD.
Oh Randy, why'd you choose to only read SOME of the bible, WHHYYYYYYYY RANDY WHYYYYYYYY?
SAVE YOUR SOUL, SELL EVERYTHING YOU OWN, GIVE ALL YOUR MONEY TO CHARITY AND MOVE TO THE POOREST NATION ON EARTH....IT'S YOUR ONLY CHANCE RANDY GOOOOOOOO!
and if you do randy, i'll stop having gay sex...i promise.
What Jesus said was to love one another as I have loved you. What he meant was to follow his example of sacrifice and service, not homoeroticism.
Actually, the bible does address homosexuality. Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24 - 32.
Religion:
1a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3:archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Merriam Webster's
Hahaha, yes "atheism is a religion" - I love this line. You're incredibly dense. Atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. You're making yourself look pretty bad, why don't you sit this one out, Randy?
Nice try Garcher and Deborah, but you are both completely wrong. The original of Leviticus says nothing at all even hinting at homosexuality, that is only found in pseudo translations. No version of the Roman's passages mention homosexuality, and furthermore, the books Corinthians and Romans do not present as being anything other than the opinions of a man named Paul. If you are going to use the Bible as justification for something, it's best to know what it actually says.
@Belletrist21..
Actually, the bible does address homosexuality. Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24 - 32.
I wasn't aware of the existence of a homosexual religion. I bet the liturgical vestments are top-notch, and the churches very tastefully decorated.
I can't even begin to think how much fun the coffee hours are.
TO Debora Pearson.Roker:
Why do Christians misrepresent what the bible says in Leviticus 20:13?
In modern English this is translated as:
"If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman's bed, both have committed an abomination. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
This does not generally forbid homosexual behavior between two men. It only limits where the act can be done.
Why "lie?"
an abomination last I heard this is forgiveable in the Lords eyes. The elephant man was given such a title I think you should go to heaven and ask...
"Actually, the bible does address homosexuality. Read Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24 - 32."
Says it's an "abomination". Do you eat lobster? It's an abomination. I hope your sideburns aren't lower than the top of your ear. Abomination.
On the other hand, those sins are not in the Ten Commandments (you know....where the REALLY BAD SINS are......like "coveting your neighbor's ox".
Help! My statue is bleeding! What should I do?
"What Jesus said was...."
Read my lips. I DON'T CARE what Jesus said. I don't care what Budda said. I dont' care what Mohammed said. I don't care what Zeus said.
Any questions?
Maybe someone can help me with this, I've been trying to wrap my head around a lot of these people who are against marriage for love, and the #1 thing is marriage/sex for procreation. In the bible it says that god would rather your seed fall in the belly of a whore(apparently they didn't have anatomy classes back then) then on the ground. This goes against procreation because the same people who follow this book condemn whores, so what's the real deal here?
"Atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby." Thank you. This made my day (besides all the N.C. residents voting against this b.s.)
sam -
I do happen to care what Odin said. You know, about killing all the ice giants. Anyone seen any ice giants around?
Now, Jesus said he'd eradicate sin. Anyone know any sinners?
Well, I suppose that clears that up. Clearly, Odin exists as a god and Jesus doesn't. Because no ice giants but plenty of sinners. Allfather 1; Ownfather 0.
Back to the reality at hand, you're right, atheism is not a religion. I happen to know as I'm an atheist myself. I take the "null hypothesis" very seriously, so any extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof before I will accept them as correct. I still have my own little beliefs, which I'm trying to eradicate with science as best I can, but I muddle on and try to use the frontal lobe my ancestors evolved to think my way through situations before just diving in head first.
We observe no ritualistic relationship with any deity (as there is none). We don't hate god or worship a devil because we don't believe they exist. If you find an atheist that worships something, they're doing it wrong, by definition. Same as if you find a Christian that worships Gaia, or a Muslim that prays to the Sun, or any follower of Jain that eats food instead of sunshine. They're not really doing it right.
However, when you find someone that believes in Jesus, that uses that belief and the terribly-written monstrosity of bad literature that is the Bible, to justify a horrific act, I don't think you can claim they aren't Christian. Christ said many things (assuming you believe he existed at all, much less as the son of god; personally, I think he's just a conglomeration, but I'll leave it to the excellent Richard Carrier to defend that point of view). Among them, he said to bring war, but love your neighbor. He said that family was important, but you should leave and do great works. He said that the poor and meek would be blessed, then encouraged them to rise up against perceived injustice (in all actuality, probably real injustice, but there's little difference between perceived and real in a mob). He told them god would provide, but people must learn and experience hardship and work in order to survive.
Honestly, just about any position could be made using the Bible as justification. The only one I can't think of is actually taking the side of the Devil, were he to magically appear, against God in some fashion. As neither the devil nor any god actually appeared, I think it's safe to say we're clear on that one. But a book that can be used to cause so much violence, hatred, love, inspiration, decadence, piety, hypocrasy, judgementalism, and pretty much any other position one would take on an issue, isn't really a useful book in my opinion. When people read a bad book and get bad ideas so constantly, I tend to put the blame on the book and the belief in it, not on their particular interpretation of said fairy tale.
But hey, what do I know? I'm just this guy...
And how do you know that's what he meant, did he stop by and tell you this in person?
Sam: Did you read Act 10: 14-15? No? Enough said. Maybe you should actually do research before you go spouting off what other people say first.
why bother arguing with randyek? randy, give your money and computer to the church, and pray for forgiveness.
BTW, I haven't mentioned it this month, but a famous study has shown that conservatives know, in that special way conservatives have of knowing things, that the slippery slope is real, and that, therefore, if homosexuals are granted their constitutional rights, the wives of conservative churchmen will start having sex with lizards. You can see why they get so agitated.
what is normal?
can anyone answer that? oh wait i can!
normal is something that you yourself perceive as common in the world around you therefor normal is nothing more than a persons opinion based on his character and experience with the world around him.
so what you call normal may not be normal to someone else so there is no such thing as a universal normal because it does not exist because we all have different opinions and norms.
and since everything changes that means what is considered to be normal will change as well.
so when you say gay marriage is abnormal and straight marriage is normal that is your OPINION not a fact. So please do shut up because sane and reasonable people base their decisions on fact reason and sensibility.not opinions!!!!!
Actually nobody really cares what these Anti-God people are talking about. This is just another way for them to excuse their sinful behavior. If Gay Marriage was such a great thing, why is that they need to convince everybody that they are correct?
Second, to all those Christians on this site who stand up for Jesus and the bible, Don't lose hope. We will not allow them to take our country.
How does anyone knwo what Jesus even said let alone what he meant.....there are no writings of his available...all the bible contains is hearsay, even worse its hearsay that wasn't even written by the people its associated with, the gospels were not written by the apostles themselves, they were written by other people well after the apostles have died...the only actual writings that are in existence fromt he time of Jesus are the Dead Sea Scrolls and they contradict just about everything the catholic church would like you to believe....and lets face it, after the whole child sex abuse scandal the catholic church doesn't have a right to an opinion on this subject.....
Ugh, can you people shut the hell up about the bible already? YOUR RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN OUR LAWS. Separation of church and state for a reason-that's why it's in the first freakin' amendment. Once your religion starts infiltrating our laws, we become no better than the countries in the Middle East you love to hate--just a different version with a slightly different god. Practice it all you want, I really don't care what you do in private, so why do you care so much about what homosexuals do in their bedrooms? Weren't you supposed to be for smaller government? Drop the religious arguments. This is about politics. WE ARE A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOT A THEOCRACY. Maybe if I type in capital letters enough, you'll be able to read it.
It's not YOUR country. Get over yourself. Your god has a special place in hell for judgmental, hateful sinners like you, by the way.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR..." Declaration of Independence
"We have our freedom because of our faith; we do not have our faith because of our freedom." G. W. Bush
Any system of belief is a religion. Marriage corruption supporters are completely dependent upon the misapplication of language, blatant falsehoods, and bald face lies in defense of their depravity.
I'm fairly certain that the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence (YOU DO KNOW THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT?) is the law of the land, smart one--and that in the First Amendment, it states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. No one is trying to deny you your religious rights, so why do you keep trying to stomp all over the rights of others?
A quick scroll through other GWB quotes proves that he's mostly just good for a laugh and not a reliable source of wisdom--especially when it comes to litigation.
"Marriage corruption supporters", eh? You do know that heterosexuals have been "corrupting" marriage (as if it were ever a sacred institution and not originally a social contract used for power and money) for as long as it ha been around, right? Divorce, cheating, marrying multiple wives, etc?
Misapplication of language? (Constitution vs. Declaration of Independence, "marriage corruption") Blatant falsehoods and bald-faced lies (everything you've said...) POT, MEET KETTLE.
RandyEK
Its the Constitution our laws are tested against not the deceleration and there god is not mentioned.
Please stop using religion as an excuse or a reason to stomp on others rights and to trample on the Constitution, it is shameful.
I am still wondering where this thought of this unchanging traditional marriage has come from, in the US alone there have been 14 amendments to the law that describes the definition of marriage. This immutable description of traditional marriage you all hold so dear is a fantasy.
Ah, RandyEK, you're back on Newsvine for sure, with the same bull@!$%# you posted as Randy K -- word for word. And it's just as wrong now as it was then.
And yet you only have to be told murder is a sin once:
I Corinthians 6:8-10 – “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Corinthians 6:18-20 – “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man
commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own
body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in
you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought ata price. Therefore honor God with your body.”
Revelation 21:8 – “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, SEXUALLY IMMORAL, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 22:14-15 – “Blessed are those who do His commandments, that
they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates
into the city. But outside are dogs and sorcerers and SEXUALLY IMMORAL and
murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.”
Romans 1:18-27 -- “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in
unrighteousness…Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves: for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever… For this cause God gave them up unto vile
passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against
nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.”
Heh, read the very NEXT chapter.
Shut up, and stop using your reading as a tool to judge other people. The Bible is not a law. It's self-discipline. if you don't have self-discipline, repent. But "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." Not "vengeance is Randy's."
@unhappy
you done being unhappy
you know you have litterally no debating skills right?
dont you read your own comment b4 entering it? try using the you YOUR god gave you and talk both sides of the arguement.
you dont need to be brainwashed
Judgment has already been made; and vengeance is coming
Don't shoot the messenger!
RandyEK -
You realize that sounds threatening, right? I mean, you jump all over any pitiful little excuse to sound persecuted; stub your toe, must be those damn atheists casting a spell on you or something. Yet you complain any time somebody actually smacks you around verbally and puts your pitiful book to shame with actual knowledge. Get bent, @!$%#.
Unhappy -
A big @!$%# YOU, buddy. This is just as much MY country as it is yours. I was born here, raised here, went to school here, and work here. I've paid taxes, I've supported my governmental system, and I support separation of Church and State, something you seem to be unfamiliar with. Of course, you most likely weren't all THAT unfamiliar with the fact that the whole Christian Nation myth is new, were you? I mean, the last time the Religious Reich tried to change the preamble to the Constitution to insert all the blather about God and Jesus and @!$%#-all, it was 1980.
As late as 1980, these @!$%#ers were complaining about God not being in the Constitution, and how that would undermine the US and draw down the bogey man's wrath. He'd probably send a few tornadoes or hurricanes or earthquakes. You know, all the @!$%# that would happen if 'He' didn't exist, and no proof that it was 'Him' guiding it or anything. This @!$%# had been going on for a little over 200 years, starting with the ratification conventions.
After Reagan, they seemed to calm down. Lately, they've had revisionists like David Barton (I'll be totally @!$%#ed if I EVER call that stupid @!$%#ing moron a historian) crowing about how this IS a "Christian Nation" because some of the founders were Christian. Big shocker ----------> He's a @!$%#ING LIAR! This was NEVER intended to be a Christian nation. The founders made it perfectly clear that separation of Church and State was paramount. Hence, no religious test for office, no state-sponsored churches, no requirement of oaths sworn to any god, no titles mentioning faith or god, etc.
We exist today because of the separation of Church and State. There is no way around having the religious influence politics. That's part of a democracy. But I'll be @!$%#ed again if I let you just trample over everything we've built in the past 236 years because you've got a boner for Jebus.
The Bible is clear about a lot of other things, too. So, why didn't NC pass a constitutional amendment against the eating of shellfish or mixing fabrics (a real fashion no-no)? I am terribly offended when I am forced to witness others eat lobster. Why should I be expected to "accept" their deviant behavior?
9.9% unemployment and these "lawmakers" spend their time to try to do nothing more than limit the rights of certain citizens. Does this help the teabaggers get elected again? Will they run on JOBS again, or is being anit-gay enough to get the majority, ignorant vote in that state?
I thought the GOP already solved that "jobs" problem?
They did! Once they won the house last year, they haven't said a word about it. Now they would like to bring up stupid social issues like this to keep their base blind about their great record!
You're confused Tex.
No special treatment, just the same treatment. Won't cost you a thing. My Fortune 500 company already offers domestic partner medical and dental benefits to non-married couples (same or opposite sex).
You're a dinosaur and the world is marching on without you.
following your logic tex, why aren't we banning mail-order brides who benefit at the expense of the tapayer
@tex: I dunno, my job also has "domestic partnership" coverage, whether same-sex, live-in girlfriend, or whatever. And the nonsensical logic you're presenting -- doesn't that just make the argument we should provide for *anyone*? How many trailer-trash heterosexuals are taking welfare checks? How about eliminating tax deductions for having children? Why should I have to pay for someone else's kids?
I know, why do you think a little bit about what you're saying?
It's not "special" treatment when everybody else already gets that treatment, tex. I'm starting to think you're just an internet troll, since nobody could really be that air-headed.
Interesting there tex.. quote altered to highlight absurdity of argument.
I've never heard about homosexuals asking for special treatment just the same treatment that is given to heterosexual couples. They're paying the same taxes why shouldn't they get the same benefits.
The good news is that Tex - and other bigots like him - will be dying off soon. The younger generation doesn't give a rat's arse about this issue (rightly so) and all the hoopla surrounding gay marriage will look as archaic and quaint as women't suffrage.
So kick back and enjoy your 40 in the trailer park, Tex. Your opinion may be in the (arguable) majority now, but you're still on the wrong side of history.
Obama and our democrat governor get the blame on that one!!!
In defense of tex: tex is not confused. there has to be room in your head for a couple of different things for confusion to occur. It is, though, difficult to describe the tex phenomenon, but, at a guess, more like all pervasive delusion, maybe even an all-encompassing hallucination, powered by the ferocious energy of fear.
tex
of course as RTypo showed we could go on and on about how that same @!$%# was said about blacks and even before that people of different religions but that will probably lead us nowhere.
So you know what! @!$%# trying to reason with you! i give up! I'm just going to say one thing.
you are a pathetic fool who knows nothing about the history of both the US and the rest of the world, trapped within a worthless past sense of understanding and thinking,with no characteristic worth even complementing on or mentioning, and you have the comprehensive skills of a 3rd grader held back for 3 years.
Thanks hope you burn in hell for all eternity.
Why does liberals always bring race and class into an argument? Those talking points are old. Stop doing that unless you are a minority. I'm tired of white people thinking they are speaking for us, when they are not. I'm beginning to think that race only matters to liberals. Without that, they are left with nothing.
Who is "us?" Both issues fall under "equal protections."
He Unhappy - it is kind of hypocritical of a black person to try and restrict the rights of another person
Because it is relevent in this case. Discrimination based on sexual orietation is just as ridiculous as discrimination based on race or class.
Why haven't conservatives come up with viable rebuttals for said arguments? That's really getting old.
@unhappy
becuase all the right wing cares about is getting votes by enforcing christianity?
its a cult...get over it...
race and class is obviously an issue, only an ignorant moron would think it isnt. it about time we amp up our education to teach morons like you...
also unhappy, you are from the south? cuz you said u live in NY
and thats impossible...NY is anti bigot...
Marriage: One white to one white, one black to one black
That used to be the popular view too. Just because a majority support it in your state doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc
EXACTLY! Just because a majority support it doesn't make it right. So you can vote yourself all the gay benefits you want and you can wait until all us old time believers are dead to change society the way you want it. It still doesn't make it right
Our governmental system is supposed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. VOTING on whether people should have access to certain civil rights/liberties is mind-boggling. As many others have pointed out, interracial marriage, and perhaps even the slavery issue would still be unresolved in numerous backwards, ignorant states if this were the norm.
Bill-
I think you miss the point.
It is not right to deny anyone rights based on majority opinion. That does not meant that it is not right to give people rights based on majority opinion, just that the majority has finally progressed to humanity.
No I got your point. I am simply using your own logic to illustrate that you cannot force other people to accept your views simply by attrition
No I got your point. I am simply using your own logic to illustrate that you cannot force other people to accept your views simply by attrition
We will fight it like we fought discrimination against minorities and women, through protest and using all available legal channels.
Bill- you say you cannot force other people to accept your views, what has religion been doing to people for thousands of years??? and they really forced it, I've never seen a homosexual say accept my lifestyle or I'll kill you, really who are the perverse ones here?
To those of you who believe marriage isn't a civil right...
From Loving v Virginia Supreme Court case ruling
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
The courts have already determined marriage as a fundamental right...in time this will be extended to people of different sexual orientation as well. To the Constitution thumpers, you really need to read more about the court cases that have clarified the rights of its citizens before you go off on a tirade about how marriage isn't a fundamental right...If an amendment to ban heterosexual marriage was passed by the ballot box, it wouldn't be able to withstand Constitutional muster....even murderers, child molesters, spouse abusers retain the right to marry...what justification is there to prohibit GLBT people from marrying other than simply we don't like you and want to keep you from marrying?
bill deacon has lost another debate. Do you think he's changed his mind?
bill deacon
why does gay married couples getting the same benefits as straight married couples do bother you so much!? Is it because you are a bigot? oh come on you can tell us its alright.. well it isn't alright but still you can tell use.
so now they want to take away the civil unions as well, hmmmm how many people are going to see that coming????? People it is really not about marriage for one man and one women--it is about being able to get benefits from your partners job, health, dental, survivor benefits, is this really a problem with most people? I would say no, the problem is the vows that is the issue, so fix it let civil unions exist and let partners no matter what man to women or man to man or women to women let them have the benefits,
never met a homosexual that all up in your face tryin to "convert" you to become gay....
however, if you just move to any house, i have one of them trying to sneak into your house to tell you a fairy tale story...
Youur Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution. The opening book of the Bible tells us: “A man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick to his wife and they must become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) The Hebrew word “wife,” according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, “connotes one who is a female human being.” Jesus confirmed that those yoked together in marriage should be “male and female.”
Man can not govern himself. Look around. He has made a fine mess of things...
Comment # 8 deleted, a little death wishy. No good.
Youur Creator established rules governing marriage long before governments began regulating the institution.
Sorry to burst your bubble Renee but we were marrying people in China before Jesus was even an idea and before the writing of the Torah.
Excellent point, Really. How often do we read about gays ganging up for some "straight bashing"?
Separation of church and state. You cannot throw church into politics. It never mixes well. Every person should have rights, whether married to same sex or not and in civil unions. It makes me wonder why in a certain county in NC, did they decide to change the polling places from schools to churches, mostly catholic and baptist. Kind of ironic, don't you think. Gay marriage is already illegal in this state, why do you need an amendment to make it even more illegal. Just wrong...Vote against it. If I still lived in NC, I would definitely vote against it..
Yet more example of the hypocrisy of the Right who claim to loath "Big Government" when it suits their purposes but in reality want government to control every aspect of our personal and moral lives.
tex,
I didn't know the law is requiring you to marry another man????
Tex, I'd like to take the opportunity to speak for all gays everywhere when I say this: "We don't want you, stay in your cave and do as you like."
Tex, are you on drugs?
This is usually the point where people like Tex stop responding.
Tex forgot to mention a bible reference. Now its not official. ;)
tex
please go back to the conspiracy mobile with Glenn Chaney and Nixon and McCarthy's ghosts and go solve conspiracies elsewhere and let intelligent people deal with this ok.
There may in the future be laws to priests saying "marry this gay couple or be fired." But that would be funny. "You, George, marry Steve over there and have lotsa sex."
It is hard to believe that in the year 2012 we are still having this discussion, does anyone think that in 100 years people will look back on how pathetic we as a civilization are now?
If you love someone and care for them with all you heart and want to get married then do it, no one should be able to tell you other wise.
For legal purposes, which is the discussion at hand, marriage is between two consenting adult humans. Animals and children need not apply.
Tex-from Genesis 19
Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
Yes I believe that 100 years from now people will look back on how pathetic our society is.
LOL!
"Some people love their son and daughter, and even their dog, with all their hearts. Does that mean marriage?"
LOL.
What is up with Republicans and incest and beastiality? Are those huge problems in America?........you know...like flag burning?
Normal people don't think a lot about incest and beastiality.
Is it a southern thing? I'm guessing that 99% of beastiality is practiced by adolescent farm boys who tend to grow up Republican? There aren't quite as many branches on their family trees either.
Is is guilt?
Who cares what people 100 years from now think?
Let me see, so a bunch of folks on here want to argue that it was wrong for our society to once treat homosexuality as a mental illness right back in the day when common sense was used right? Let me ask you a simple question, if I decide tomorrow that I am actually Elvis Presley I will immediately be considered to be mentally ill right? Well, how is that any different than a man deciding he is actually a women?? what's more insane? Think about it!! What happened to wanting to help people with mental illness?
America will EVOLVE with them or without them. It's happening and there is nothing that can stop it.
Evolution takes longer when the gene pool is that shallow.
Hey now, don't insult my family wreath!
Hilarious. Are we so arrogant to think "America" will exist in 100 years? Great civilizations come and go, it's inevitable. Take a look at the division among the posts on this thread. To use a golf analogy, this country is on the "back nine" and has been for some time.
I do hope the "talibaptists" are surprised by a resounding defeat.
talibaptists.....great name
Yeah - I have to credit "talibaptist" to another Newsviner months ago.
I appreciate the car wash guy who discerns where the automated washer missed a spot of dirt and cleans it by hand. Then again when my teen discriminated against the smoking crowd and never picked up the habit, that decision represented successful milestone. However, even if she did, I'd love her and not her habit.
Similarly, there are a variety of reasons to discriminate against homosexuality. Medical reasons such as gay bowel disease and depression, increased health care related costs, offending straight people who abhor homosexual advances, it's biologically dysfunctional, it ignores the reality that life is sexually transmitted, it severs a family lineage, it promotes the disintegration of biological families, exposes impressionable children to a lifestyle parents disagree with, it creates a shortened life span, and most importantly to some of us, the Bible says it's wrong. And while these values can't be forced on others, they should at least examine the evidence.
Such nonsense. But you surely know that!
Depression, please I have NEVER met an overly depressed gay guy and I have alot of gay friends since I grew up in San Francisco, CA and to say that a guy/gal couple harbors horrible parenting habits is perposturious. What healthcare additional cost are you talking about that the gay community sucks from I'd like to know??How do you catergorize a biological family? What is your definition of a biological family? Because my parents devorced when I was 2 so I have never had my real father living in my home, so I guess I am one of those non-biological families. Aren't all children impressionable, and hate seems to be flowing freely in your parenting skills, Oh and please reference where GOD wrote the bible and references homosexuals as all evil, last I heard the devil held that title.I believe what I can see and when I see people like you it makes me wonder how we have survived this long without some kind of intervention whether its God or not I do not know but you sir are promoting ignorance, I hope your children go far away for college cause they will need to re-adjust to the real world....
Thorgood: when anything you say applies to why gay marriage should be illegal, let us know. thanks!
Ah yes, and black folk get sickle cell, and old white and asian ladies are more prone to osteoporosis, and white men are more likely to get heart disease. Let's just examine the evidence!
Haha, you're absurd.
"offending straight people who abhor homosexual advances"
Gee, that never happens to me. What is it about you that sets of their "Gaydar".
How old were you when you "chose" to be heterosexual? Tough choice? Do you have to pray a lot to resist the terrible temptation to "choose" to be homosexual?
Ive examined the evidence and have determined that only young hot lesbians should get married. After all they have the longest lives, lowest chance of communicable disease, won't burden society with health care costs associated with childbirth as much, and everyone loves watching them (according to the amount of porn out there).
I propose a no marriage unless you are a young lesbian bill! I'm basing it on "evidence."
Are you for real? And again, the bible is just one book (and an incomplete one, check out the Council of Nicea, this book was put together by committee) for one religion. And if I don't believe in your religion, why should I do what your book says? Hmmmm....sounds like Iraq....
"gay bowel disease."
Um, seriously? When the first thing you post is a made-up disease, why read further?
I think the scariest fact is that Thorogood has children. Yikes! My condolences to your offspring for having such a severely delusional parent. I see years of therapy in his/her future.
It does sever family lines. But let's talk about that. First, adoption rights are curiously made illegal in rapid succession. This means that gays who could have become part of family making process (the foster care system in this country is broken, adoption is a FAR better solution), oh wait you can't. Second, the article? Existing families have to think about whether their state will try to tell them their adoption isn't legal and give back those kids. You wanna talk about severing families?!? Let's talk about that.
another fine example of our de-evolution and "justice for all" hypocrisy.
Justice for the rich heteroes only? How about outlawing divorce if marriage is really the concern?
shhhh......don't give them any ideas.
Actually we Christian heteros would do well to examine our acceptance of the divorce culture. It is no less corrosive to society than any number of transgressions. I won't go so far as to include shellfish as some of the more ridiculous on here do but surely single parenting, co-habiting, casual sex (straight or gay) These are all destructive to us individually and collectively. Who can deny this?
bill: very thought provoking post. The ironic thing is that gay marriage has either zero or a positive effect on society, whereas threats to families are very negative. If marriage is good for heteroes, how is it bad to extend that to the entire population?
"single parenting, co-habiting, casual sex"
We should make these illegal...along with card playing, dancing, drinking, and playing billiards.
2 Timothy 3:1-6
1 But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.
Anything looking familiar?
What setback? State recognition of homosexual hookups as marriage loses every time a public referendum is held. That's why homophiles hate and fear democracy. That's why they try to prevent public referendums, and after the voice of the people is heard, homophiles' hired legal guns go shopping for friendly radical activist judges to overturn the results of democracy. How do MSNBC and other media outlets conduct the polls that claim to show public approval of state recognition?
Agent K from MIB: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
that's what whites said too when blacks were freed by military force, and when scotus had to rule to allow mixed race marriages. "its a states issue..we should vote..blah blah blah".
The tyranny of the majority is always a fear when it comes to rights.
Always such sanity coming out of Vermont. Tip of the hat to you, sir.
Homosexual "hookups"? What about homosexual relationships that last for DECADES? I find it ironic that Maurice Sendak just passed away, who was with his partner for over 50 years...
Ssshhhhh, don't let on that Maurice Sendak was gay or the homophobes will put Where the Wild Things Are on the (long) list of books to burn...or to remove from libraries. Or to forbid to be read to children.
I'm sure they burned 'In the Night Kitchen' because it depicts a naked little boy... and you can see his pee-pee!
Scandalous!
i'm gonna miss maurice.
What's the big shock? The entire state is a SETBACK..........and let's not get started on that other Carolina...............
Great job with that blanket statement of yours. For being a setback, NC seems to be doing fine with one of the largest GDP's in the union and also being home to several high tech industries, as well as having the second largest banking center in the US. Our legislators proposing one discriminatory ammendment in an effort to distract the constituency from more pressing matters does not make the eleventh most populous state in the union a collection of dolts.
It just puts NC, and the other states that have passed things like this one step closer to being like say Iran, or Iraq, so if you vote for it remember that next time you hear they are going to stone someone.
If you are unahppy with the State of NC feel free to leave. It is disgusting to see two sames We are all different with different opinions, but this one I just cannot abide. I know I am a girl, and I know I like my guy.
Don't worry Lady Jag, they'll put vaginal probing into law next time.
Sleep well.
hey lady, I think it is disgusting when people talk and eat at the same time, should we make that illegal too? lol.
And don't get me started on peanut butter and fluff sandwiches...
I think it's absolutely disgusting when people walk around barefoot or when someone smokes a cigarette or when a person turns towards others with hatred in their heart. Should these be illegal?
I know I am a girl too! How about that! I also like my guy! I also love to see two people in love holding hands! Even if it's two guys! Or two girls!
@Lady Jag: And why should I care what you can or can't 'abide?' I can't abide pushy, sanctimonious Christians but I don't want to outlaw them; I just want them to leave me alone. Much like gays and lesbians who just want to live their lives in peace and equality.
I can't stand watching hetero's groping each other in public or on TV!! I think THAT should be banned!! Oh, and maybe you just haven't met the "right girl" yet. LMAO!
Lady Jag - I can't abide people who can't abide homosexuals or crack their gum or suck popcorn hulls out of their teeth after they eat it in the movies or the smell of people who smoke.
Love is wonderful and if you find it, regardless of where you find it, you are a lucky person, indeed.
If these interfering good christians are so concerned about the sanctity of marraige may I suggest that half of them stop stepping out on the other half? No gay ever caused a marriage to tank but lots of fine christians screwing around on their spouse have...a pox on your religions
Well, I guess polygamy is out of the question in North Carolina.
It is absolutely none of my business if adult women want to be "sister wives". It's certainly none of the government's business.
Conservatives want government just small enough to fit in your bedroom.
Sam, NC has more amendments coming. They want to codify into law which hand you wipe your butt with. Apparently, the Bible suggests that you eat with your right hand and wipe with your left hand.
Since we all know that North Carolina is a trend setting state, we can be sure that other states will follow their lead. (sarcasm)
With other issues more important, like which hand you wipe your butt with, why is North Carolina wasting time on this same gender marriage issue?
Anyone who compares this issue to interracial marriage is very confused. But then its pretty obvious to the rest of us that any same sex couple is living in confusion. Do they understand the difference between a nut and a bolt? If that understanding makes me a bigot then a bigot I am. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business but don't mandate to me that I have to educate my child to try and understand that there is no difference between a gay couple and a married couple.
"but don't mandate to me that I have to educate my child to try and understand that there is no difference between a gay couple and a married couple."
Gay marriage won't affect your ability to poison your child's mind with hatred and fear.
You are a bigot and an ignorant, tapado. Who is going to mandate you to teach your child there is no difference between gay and straight people? Is this another fear pushed forth on foxnews or your local brainwashing center, you call a church?
You pretend to be filled with logic, but what you fail to grasp is that gay marriage doesn't affect your straight marriage in any way. Nor does it preclude you from passing on your bigoted views to any offspring you may produce. God help them.
Letting others have more freedom doesn't affect you in any way. Try to pay attention.
Besides, if you were smart enough to figure out the difference between a nut and a bolt, your kids will probably also be able to...
He is paying attention. Try to understand that changing the nature of marriage affects the society we all live in. We are advocating to oppose an orientation towards acceptance of homosexuality, not as a characteristic but as a behavior.
Yeah this is always the amusing thing, to me. They point out how "obvious" it is that being gay "isn't right" but then ask how in the world they are to protect their children from it. How will they know!?
You can't have it both ways, guys. Either it's obvious or it isn't. Unless you're implying your children are going to be very stupid people. Or perhaps you're just, you know... wrong.
bill: how does allow gays to marry (instead of "living in sin") HURT society? yes, it CHANGES society..but I would argue for the better.
Can you be precise and explicit how society would be hurt by allowing gay marriage?
The state (voters) may choose to allow same sex marriage. In which case the state will reap the consequences it sows, good or bad. Caution! that which benefits the state may not benefit those who live in it. In religious circles, same sex marriage is considered to contravene the design for marriage ordained by God and ratified by all generations past. If we contravene God's plan, he may have something to say about it. We'll have to see.
Explain how the legal arguments made in Loving v Virginia don't apply to gay marriage. Please, I'd love to see it.
so, bill, it sounds like you are saying that gay marriage hurts society since it contravenes biblical principles. well, based on that, we should make everything illegal that contravenes biblical principles?
who is going to lock up the last sinner? :)
"If we contravene God's plan, he may have something to say about it. We'll have to see."
Flood? Locust? Are you seriously suggesting that you are protecting us from God's wrath? "Wait til your father gets home!"
Gay marriage WILL require that parents allow others to teach their children there is no difference in the morality of gay or straight marriage or sex. With legal marriage, every public school that teaches sex education will be required to give equal time to teach the techniques of gay sex i.e. anal sex, oral sex (maybe throw in the gerbil stuff too?) and disease prevention. They will have to present it as normal as heterosexual sex being both are equally legal and an equally viable option for a marriage commitment. Parents who disagree will have the school system teaching just the opposite.
Bill, Bill, Bill... please show me the words 'God's plan' anywhere in the Constitution. I'll be waiting.
@Tapado: Yes, you are a bigot.
arnold... you're speaking like straight people don't have anal sex, oral sex...(I'm not touching the gerbil comment... what ARE you heteros into????) Don't worry, the majority of states will continue to only teach abstinence, which is why the teen birth rate is going up and teens are the fastest growing HIV group in the nation! Lemme tell you something else... having sex with my wife is as normal as it can possibly get. Maybe not for you, but for me. I think straight sex is disgusting and makes me want to hurl. However, I promise not to vote that you can't have what is normal for YOU. I don't know how you think we got here, but *I* was born to a "normal" heterosexual couple, as was my wife. Christians, even!! *Gasp* Obviously, you had parents that taught you about sex with gerbils....
For the last @!$%#ing time this is not a christian theocracy you brain dead morons who want the government to base its laws off the bible so please shut the @!$%# up and god to hell were you belong.
My sex ed class covered disease prevention for anal an oral sex. Not because of gay marriage, but because people do these things regardless of sexual orientation. On a sheer volume basis we straight people have WAY MORE oral and anal sex than gay people.
Proudly, I have contributed to these statistics :)
I'd like you to please explain the "nature of marriage". I bet I'll get crickets, though.
The death of common sense, manifested in most of these comments! The gay community is quite a sensitive bunch!
Oh you've got that right, but you're pointing in the wrong direction.
But please, feel free to act as you icon suggests (a crying kid).
And before you try and get your panties in a bunch, I'm not gay, and neither are many of the pro-gay posters.
I think all gay people should go to North Carolina and "choose" to be straight. Marry the Talibaptists daughters and pass on the homosexual gene to their grandchildren.
That's what they want, isn't it?
I think when the leader of that Westboro "Church" dies, we should organize a large group of homosexuals to make out next to the graveyard as they bury him.
Sam,
I keep reading your comments hoping for something constructive. But at this point I would settle just for something not juvenile. You don't advance your cause my friend.
Answer the question: when precisely did you choose to become sexually attracted to the opposite sex?
I may not be able to choose who I am attracted to one way or another. However, I can choose how I behave and act on that attraction.
Right, and there is the crux of the Loving v Virginia case. A black man choose to act on attraction to a white woman, and the court ruled miscegenation laws to be illegal.
Then tell me, why is homosexual sex between two consenting adults wrong? It affects you in no way, shape, or form.Denying legal rights to a group of people simply because you find a certain aspect of them 'disgusting' is the very definition of bigotry. Are you a bigot Bill?
I never said you disgust me Ruken. Don't put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend them. The fact is that your sin and mine are equally disgusting to God and he tells us that repeatedly. He also calls us to his love and asks us to turn from our sin. Even if everyone on the planet votes for gay marriage, God will not. It is just not His way and we don'[t get to tell Him. He tells us. But, good luck in the voting booth!
That doesn't make any sense. So if you are attracted to the same sex you should refrain from acting upon that attraction? To what purpose? Why? Because you don't like it or another segment of society doesn't like it?
Bill how can U predict what God would do just cause U talk to him doesn't mean he agrees with you. How can U put words into Gods mouth (does he have a mouth?)and how can U believe in something like the bible when it is perceved and written by man, and I am not mocking you but your faith is yours not mine therefor it has no buisness in politics...
ROswell - because that is YOUR cross to bear. We all have a cross to bear -something in our character that we need to work on or urges we need to control. We all have one or more. Being a homosexual isn't a sin, but acting on it is.
Bill: I don't believe in God (as many other millions don't) so your one-dimensional arguments based on 'biblical truths' (an oxymoron if there ever was one) don't hold water. You'll have to come up with something else.
And pssst... our government doesn't govern based on the bible either, so you'll have to convince them too.
bill deacon
nothing you say is constructive since all your arguments are based on your OPINION not fact and you use YOUR religious beliefs as an excuse to ban others from what you believe is wrong but were in the bible does it say god wants you to use the bible like that hmmmm? in fact that action in itself is a sin so your forcing of your will on others whether it is good intentions or not is still a sin!
remember "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" that's the best way i can describe your actions in your biblical bull@!$%# way.
i believe in god but i don't follow an organized religion because people like you use it to force your views on others and it is just sick and an insult to the very god you say you worship and i can think of no greater insult.
There are "good Christians" actually being "good Christians."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywImcNViPtc
Neil deGrasse Tyson tweeted this video earlier today, and I've been passing it on. There are those out there thinking logically, realizing that the majority cannot and must not vote on the Constitutional rights of the minority.
Thanks for that link.
There are two separate paradigms at work. One is religious and philosophical; arguing whether homosexuality is normal or aberrant. The second is political; voting whether to ratify or exclude it. Political consensus does not equate to ethical absolution.
bill: you may have missed my reply toyou up above..asking you to precisely and exactly describe how gay marriage "hurts" society.
I've yet to find anyone who can do that without resorting to vague (and unprovable) "claims", but maybe you'll be the first?
Sorry Vermont guy. I didn't intentionally miss you and I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue. Obviously neither of us can predict the consequences or outcomes. We can only postulate. For myself, I choose to follow the teachings of my faith and the history of civilization, which arcs over a long period of time. This is what makes me conservative on this issue. Others, like yourself, I presume, being liberal try to advance or progress to a vision from which you can see via your present vantage. I just have more have more faith and trust in the wisdom of the ages than I do the vision of free thinkers.
well, bill, lacking any evidence that this hurts someone, the principle of american freedom under the constitution should be to allow it.
"the wisdom of the ages" has included supporting slavery, for example..I don't support slavery, do you?
Many nations have allowed gay marriage for quite a while now. Most of these nations are doing quite well now. No postulation required really.